PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords].

Motion made [7 January],
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
	That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
	That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 28 January.

Oral Answers to Questions

WALES OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Crime Statistics (Vale of Glamorgan)

John Smith: What discussions he has had with the Home Office on crime statistics in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales. Recorded crime in the Vale of Glamorgan between April and December 2003 was 3.4 per cent. lower than the same period in 2002.

John Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Josh Jones and the officers of the Vale of Glamorgan division for yet another record-breaking year in tackling crime? Domestic burglary is down 20 per cent.; car crime down almost 20 per cent.; and the force has the highest detection rate in south Wales.
	However, is my hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern in my constituency about the road traffic police investigation into the death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones in a tragic school bus accident in December 2002? The shortcomings of the investigation were highlighted in this week's coroner's inquest. In the interest of restoring public confidence, will he call on the Crown Prosecution Service to re-evaluate the case and the evidence to see if there are grounds for proceedings? Will he also do anything he can—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his ration.

Don Touhig: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the officers serving in his police division. As to the second matter that he raised, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing once again our condolences to the family of Stuart Cunningham-Jones. I know that Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham-Jones requested a review of the decision not to prosecute anyone in connection with the death of their son, Stuart. Given that prosecution decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, I take my hon. Friend's remarks very seriously and I will ensure that I am kept fully informed of all developments.

Bill Wiggin: In south Wales, including Glamorgan, crime has risen by 6.3 per cent., which is very good in comparison with north Wales, where it is up by 48.5 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that crime is rising so rapidly in some parts of Wales? Could it be because the police are bringing fewer criminals to justice? Last year 190,000 crimes went unsolved—an increase of 50,000 from 1998–99.

Don Touhig: We all recognise that fighting crime is a major issue and the Government are putting in the resources and carrying through the legislation to fight crime. The hon. Gentleman's party is committed, of course, to a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. What would that do for the resources that we need to fight crime? Indeed, his party continues to oppose the legislation introduced by the Government to make our communities safer, so we need no lessons from him about fighting crime.

Bill Wiggin: Unfortunately, that is absolute nonsense. The Minister well knows that we are already pledged to increase the number of police officers in Wales by 2,199. He should be thinking about why the number of special constables has fallen by half and why violent crime has also increased in south Wales, including the vale, by 29 per cent. No doubt the Minister will be proud of that in comparison with north Wales, where violent crime is up by 137 per cent. Why is violent crime rising twice as fast in Wales as it is in Greater Manchester or London?

Don Touhig: This gets better. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, crime doubled. When his leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was Home Secretary, police officer numbers fell by 1,000. We have invested more money in putting more bobbies on the beat in Wales and under the Labour Government police numbers in Wales have risen 12 per cent. since 1997. There are now 7,354 police officers on duty in Wales. What the police service wants is support, investment and reform. The Government are delivering that; Conservative Members will not.

Bill Wiggin: That is most surprising, given that we have made a pledge to increase police numbers by 31 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that the number of robberies has also rocketed? Surely he would agree that that crime is a particularly unpleasant violation of people's homes, so why is expenditure in the Welsh Office now £10,609,486,000 when nothing is happening to cut the huge rise in robberies? In south Wales, robberies are up by 53.4 per cent., which is better than north Wales, where the figure is 77.2 per cent. Is that not another example of Labour taxing, spending and failing?

Don Touhig: We would take the hon. Gentleman's remarks more seriously if he could get his facts right. The Welsh Office no longer exists; it is the Wales Office. More than that, we do not have a £10 billion budget; that is the National Assembly's budget. If the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right, I would pay more attention to his question.

Miners Compensation

Win Griffiths: When the Wales sub-group dealing with matters relating to miners compensation schemes for chest diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what progress was reported.

Martyn Jones: If he will make a statement on payments to retired miners and their families in Wales under the respiratory disease and vibration white finger compensation scheme.

Don Touhig: The Welsh monitoring group dealing with coal health claims last met on 12 January and discussed the good progress being made on both chest disease and vibration white finger claims in Wales. The latest compensation figures show that £284 million has been paid out under the chest disease scheme, and £103 million under the vibration white finger scheme.

Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which shows that the Government are treating seriously the long-standing problems of illness among miners. However, will he give me some idea of the progress being made on claims by surface workers for that compensation?

Don Touhig: Indeed, that matter figured in our discussions at our last meeting on 12 January. The Department of Trade and Industry has already undertaken extensive work in consulting medical experts and conducting dust surveys in respect of affected surface workers. The Department considers that no evidence has yet been found to suggest that it is liable for respiratory diseases suffered by surface workers, but the Government are co-operating very fully with the claimants' solicitors. The judge handling the matter has requested those solicitors to identify lead claims and to gather more evidence for him to consider at the next hearing on 3 February. As I said, the Government, to help the solicitors, have provided access to all the necessary archives, and have made it clear that they will react positively if evidence emerges that the DTI is liable for compensation in this case.

Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nearly £5 million paid out for dust disease compensation in my constituency shows that the Government are tackling a problem that the Tories ignored for 18 years?

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend speaks the truth, as ever. If the Conservative party had not resisted the legitimate claims of miners over the years when it was in government, many miners who are now no longer with us would have received compensation when they were alive. Our priority has been to compensate the oldest miners, the ones who are most ill, and the widows. I can tell the House that the claims of the overwhelming majority of people in that category have been settled. At the beginning of January, 87 per cent. of high priority miners' claims had been settled, and settlement offers had been made in respect of 80 per cent. of widows' claims.

Adam Price: What was the Minister's reaction to the news that the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers have benefited personally to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds from the miners compensation scheme? To prevent Welsh miners and their families from being ripped off by the company set up for the purpose of securing the compensation, does the Minister believe that the Government should suspend its special deal with the UDM, pending a full investigation of its financial affairs?

Don Touhig: Let me make it clear that the arrangement between the UDM and the company, Vendside, was agreed between them and the DTI. The same sort of scheme has been agreed with the claimants' solicitors. As for additional costs and payments, to solicitors or anyone else, I and other Labour Members are on record as saying that we totally condemn any organisation that, in addition to receiving the legal fees being paid by the Government, seeks to take compensation away from miners. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: Vendside has been involved in some 120-odd claims in Wales, but it ill behoves him to preach to the Government on the matter. I am not so sure that he was quite so outspoken when a leading member of his party doubled his salary by heading an organisation that was taking between 5 and 10 per cent. of compensation from miners and their widows.

Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the DTI originally agreed to compensate surface workers in exactly the same way as it compensated underground workers? There are only 4,700 surface workers in the entire country. Underground miners had to go through years of hard fighting with the previous Conservative Government to get compensation. Instead of requiring surface workers to go through that, would not it be much more sensible to compensate them in exactly the same way as the underground workers?

Don Touhig: I confirm my hon. Friend's point on the DTI's original position on surface workers, but I reiterate that the judge who has been handling the matter has required the solicitors acting on behalf of the claimants to submit evidence. The Government are collaborating closely and fully with the claimants' solicitors and have made it clear that if a case can be made and justified, and if it is demonstrated that miners have been injured as a result of dust intakes when working on the surface, they will respond positively. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the numbers are small. We are keeping an open mind on the matter and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion very soon.

Student Finance

Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with the Assembly Secretary of Education concerning the funding of student support for students from Wales attending English and Scottish universities in (a) 2006, (b) 2007 and (c) 2008.

Peter Hain: I have been working closely to ensure that, subject to Parliamentary approval, we have the best possible deal in place to enable the Assembly to take over responsibility for student support in Wales from 2006–07.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a university education should be about extending choices and experience? I have been informed by a senior academic in Wales that nationalist Members of the National Assembly for Wales have called for financial incentives to be given to students from Wales to attend universities in Wales rather than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he assure me that he will not countenance support for any such policy?

Peter Hain: Yes, I will. At the moment, some 18,000 students from Wales study in England. It is their right to study where they wish, and we want to increase opportunities, not put up barriers. If the new policy of the Welsh nationalists is that they want Welsh students to study only in Wales, that is typical of their narrow, parochial, nationalist vision of Wales, instead of an internationalist vision. We want a modern, confident Wales in the world, not an isolated, narrow and nationalist Wales in the world. I hope that they vote on Tuesday to devolve powers over student finance to Wales and support the Higher Education Bill. Otherwise, those finances will not be devolved.

Lembit �pik: The Government want to raise student grants from 1,000 to 1,500 and to provide loans to help students to pay top-up fees. Given that both measures would increase public expenditure, how much extra money would the Welsh Assembly get for them as a Barnett consequential, so that Wales is not short-changed even if Assembly Members choose to reject top-up fees for Wales?

Peter Hain: There is no question of the Welsh Assembly being short-changed on that. Discussions have been going on to agree the figure for the money that would flow across the border to Wales if the powers were devolved. However, I make the same point to the hon. Gentleman that I have already made. If he wants decisions about student finance in Wales to be made in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales, he should vote for the Bill on Tuesday. Otherwise, that will not happen.

Jon Owen Jones: If the Higher Education Bill is passed on Tuesday as it stands, will not the likely consequence be that English students in Welsh institutions will be subsidised from money intended for Welsh schools and hospitals? Will the Secretary of State make a statement on the consequences of the devolved settlement before we are asked to vote on Second Reading?

Peter Hain: As I have explained, funding for Welsh students, currently held in London, will be transferred following the devolution of power if the Bill is passed, which means that it must receive its Second Reading on Tuesday. If it is passed, the necessary funding will go to Wales. If the National Assembly decides in the end not to permit universities in Wales to raise extra money from fees, that extra money will have to be found from somewhere. As my hon. Friend says, that is a decision for the Assembly, but I am sure that it will not want to short-change any other budgets. The Assembly will want to find a solution that puts Welsh universities in a competitive position to gain world-class status, which is just what we want to achieve for English universities.

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has just said that it is up to students to decide where they want to be educated and whether they want to go from Wales to England. Does he not realise, however, that thanks to tuition fees and variable top-up fees students will increasingly be in debt and thus unable to afford to go from Wales to university in England or Scotland? When I went to Swansea university, I paid no fees and I received a grant, but now students are being clobbered with huge debteven now, the average debt for students is 8,000.

Peter Hain: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government cut funding for students, while the Leader of the Opposition was in government, by a third per student. We are bringing back grants and providing a package that will benefit an enormous number of students throughout Britain by up to 3,000. What does the hon. Gentleman propose? He proposes cutting grants and cutting the number of students. His successor as shadow Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee that the Opposition hoped to reduce
	the number of places or, to put it at its worst, the number of opportunities for people who leave school.[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16 December 2003; c. 49.] They want to cut the number of Welsh school leavers who go to university; we want to raise that number, with a support package to help students through university and to ensure that they get the opportunity they deserve.

Kevin Brennan: Whatever one's views on top-up fees, is not it a welcome development that the UK Government, following the lead shown by the National Assembly, have reintroduced maintenance grants for poorer students? On another matter related to cross-border student movement, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn the practice of some universities in England that reject A-level Welsh as a qualification for entry?

Peter Hain: I am very happy to reject that practice. In fact, I wrote yesterday to the vice-chancellors of Bristol university and Nottingham university, as those universities had apparently barred from consideration a Welsh student with an A-level in Welsh. An A-level is an A-level whatever the subject. A Welsh A-level is just as valid as an English A-level or an A-level in any other language, and I hope that every university in England and, for that matter, Scotland, will recognise that. The A-level is of high quality, academic standards are strong and it is important that Welsh students are not discriminated against.

Holiday Homes

Hywel Williams: What assessment he has made of the likely change in the number of holiday homes in Wales as a result of the Chancellor's proposals regarding changes to self-invested personal pensions schemes.

Don Touhig: The Government want to simplify the tax rules governing pensions, and we are consulting on proposals to do that. No assessment has been made of potential implications for holiday homes, but if the hon. Gentleman has a viewI am sure that he doeshe may wish to submit his evidence and comments to the consultation, which is open until 5 March.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that answer. I certainly have a view. The proposal is an outrageous tax perk for the super-rich, as AJ Bell said in the Financial Times. The proposal will be very good for second homes, of which there are 4,500 in the county of Gwynedd. Will the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State, resist these outrageous proposals within the Government?

Don Touhig: I have made it clear that the matter is under consultation and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his views. There are 15,000 holiday homes in Wales, which account for less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of homes in Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no proposal for a new incentive to purchase holiday homes for private use, but I urge him to submit his evidence to the consultation.

Albert Owen: Holiday homes and second homes cause tension in many communities throughout Wales, including in my constituency of Ynys Mn, predominantly due to the lack of affordable housing in those areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to increased economic activity, there is a need for planners and developers to set land aside for affordable homes to ensure that we build tolerant and cohesive communities in which local people can work and live[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members for quiet. The House must allow Members to put their questions and Ministers to reply.

Don Touhig: My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) made some valid points, and it is important that they are part of our discussions on those issues. My colleagues in the Assembly are making available 56 million under a social housing grant to improve the provision of affordable housing. Added to the funding from registered social landlords, we anticipate that that will generate more than 90 million to provide about 1,000 extra homes for rent at low cost. I think that will have an important impact on the area that he represents.

Miners (Retirement)

Roger Williams: If he will make a statement on the arrangements for retirement on the ground of ill health for miners in Wales.

Peter Hain: Mining has been an extremely important industry in Wales for generations, and miners deserve a decent retirement. It is a dangerous occupation, and I am very concerned that proper benefits are paid to miners when they retire, especially if retirement is due to ill health.

Roger Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware that the serious ill health scheme, which has supported miners who have to retire through ill health, has run out of cash. The Government recently received 51 million arising from a 1993 revaluation of the investment fund. That was before the Government took the responsibility of acting as a guarantor for the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry meet with coalfield MPs and National Union of Mineworkers officials to see whether we can release the 51 million so that miners can have that support during their most testing time?

Peter Hain: I am very happy to meet with coalfield MPsindeed, I am one myself, so I shall be meeting with myselfto see whether we can resolve this matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government paid to the mineworkers compensation scheme 400 million last year in order to boost its opportunities. We should try to resolve this matter together.

Mr. Speaker: I call Michael Fabricant[Interruption.] Order. Once again, the House is far too noisy.

Police Funding

Michael Fabricant: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on police funding in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: Police funding in Wales has increased by 58.4 million, or 20 per cent., since 1997.

Michael Fabricant: That may sound like a large figure, but it is just 3.25 per cent. on the previous year. The Secretary of State will be aware that police authorities said that they needed a 6 per cent. rise on the previous year just to maintain present standards. So, apart from telling a load of fibs about what Conservative spending plans might be, what does the right hon. Gentleman say to council tax payers who are now having to stump up even more money?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that, when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, cut the number of police officers across England and Wales by over a thousand. Since we came to power, an extra 761 police officers have been recruited in Wales alone. Crime has been going down, more police officers are being recruited, and people are feeling safer as a result, compared with the dreadful record of the Tory Government.

Chris Bryant: We have had a pretty good deal in the Rhondawe are getting a new police station in Porth in a few months' timebut we still want to see more police officers on the beat. We also want to make sure that when a new police officer is allocated to a beat that person does not just stay there for three or four months, but stays for three years. Is my right hon. Friend having discussions with senior police officers in Wales to make sure that there is continuity of policing?

Peter Hain: The point about continuity of policing is very important. I remember it coming out of the big conversation event in Newport, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held last year. I was present[Interruption.] The Conservatives may jeer about local opinion and the anxiety that local police officers stay in the area for as long as possible, as my hon. Friend says. This is an issue that we want to pursue, along with tackling antisocial behaviour and rises in crime wherever they occur. We deserve the support of all Opposition Members in the battle against crime, instead of their consistently voting against Government measures.

Elfyn Llwyd: In supporting the battle against crime, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the position in Dyfed-Powys, where a 7.3 per cent. increase is required just to stand still. That means a shortfall of 4 per cent., which in turn means a 16 per cent. increase on the police precept. How on earth can it possibly comply with the national policing plan?

Peter Hain: There has been a big increase in funding in Dyfed-Powys, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of more than 7 million, compared with what happened under the Conservatives, and compared with what would happen under nationalist policies. If Wales were independent, it would become bankrupt, and policing in Wales, including Dyfed-Powys would be savagely attacked and undermined.

Vehicle Crime (North Wales)

Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on trends in vehicle crime in north Wales.

Don Touhig: Between April and December 2003, the number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population fell by 5.3 per cent. compared with the same period in 2002. In numerical terms, there were 323 fewer vehicle crimes.

Betty Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. Is he aware that figures released last weekend for vehicle crime in Bangor in my constituency show that it has gone down by 51.45 per cent? Does he agree that the main reason for this success is that we have seen an increase in police officers, in community beat managerswho work closely with residents' associations, such as Maesgeirchen and Taistesionin wardens in housing estates and local councillors?

Don Touhig: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. I also recognise the contribution that the Government have made to increasing investment in the police service and increasing police numbers. Since the Government came to power there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the number of police officers on duty in the north Wales police area. I think we are moving in the right direction; I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

David Burnside: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

David Burnside: I look forward very much to joining the Prime Minister in the Lobby later today to support the amendment in his name on the unity of the United Kingdom, which states that all Members of the House will have a right to debate, speak on and participate in all matters affecting all parts of the United Kingdom. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and in the Irish Republic, very serious allegations have been made that political parties such as Sinn Fein are being funded by the Provisional IRA through criminal activity. Would the Prime Minister join me in making the United Kingdom's law uniform and in applying to Northern Ireland the same legislation on the funding of political parties as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree entirely with what he said: I hope we will always have one class of Member of Parliament in the House. Secondly, I would like to say that any criminal activity of the sort he has described is completely unacceptablewe cannot have a situation in which people are expected to sit in government with political parties that are attached to active paramilitary organisations. In relation to his point about political parties, certainly it is important that in the course of the review we look at all the issues that are raised, in order to make it absolutely clear that there cannot be a situation in which a political party is being funded by anything other than purely democratic and peaceful methods.

Diana Organ: At a recent meeting that I held with senior police officers in the Forest of Dean we discussed the relationship between crimes such as theft and burglary and those committed by people with a serious drug habit. However, one officer expressed his concerns about the message that the declassification or reclassification of cannabis sends young people, and said that it would prove problematic to the non-tolerance policy that is excellently used in Forest of Dean schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new classification of cannabis does lead to a mixed message with young people and drugs?

Tony Blair: I do agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we have a very clear message that possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence and that, whatever the reclassification, the police still have the power of arrest in relation to it. I think what is hoped is that the police will be able to concentrate, obviously, particularly on hard drugs, which are a huge problem. The link between heroin and crack addiction and crime is well known, and it is important that the police use all their efforts to bear down on it, but it does not alter the fact that the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

Michael Howard: Will the Prime Minister read out to the House what his manifesto at the last election said about top-up fees?

Tony Blair: I do not have the precise words in front of me, but I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we said. [Interruption.] We said we will not introduce top-up fees. In particular, I would point out to him that we are changing the existing fee structure totally, so that people will no longer have to pay up-front fees; instead they will have to pay something when they graduate, on a fair basisfar fairer than the existing system.

Michael Howard: I do have the manifesto here, as it happens. I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to read out the words on which he asked all his hon. Friends to stand at the last election. What he said in that manifesto was:
	We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them.
	Is it his case that, when he actually said that, what we should have all understood by those words was, We will introduce top-up fees; we will legislate to introduce them.?

Tony Blair: But what people can know is that instead of the existing fee structure in which fees are paid up front, instead of the existing system with no maintenance grant for poorer students, instead of having a system where there is no cap on fees, we will have no up-front feesso no family has to pay those fees when their children are going through universitythe reintroduction of maintenance grants for poorer students and a cap on fees. That surely is a fairer system than the present system. Over the past few days, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying that
	we don't have proposals
	on tuition fees, yet at the selfsame time, his shadow spokesman is saying:
	Let me place on record . . . every young person should have the chance to go to university without paying tuition fees.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself wrote a short time ago to all people in the Conservative party saying that he would scrap all tuition fees, including existing fees. So if we are going to have a debate about respective policy, what exactly is his policy now?

Michael Howard: We have made our policy absolutely clear. Both my party and the right hon. Gentleman's party stood on the same pledge at the last election. We are not going to break our promise to help him break his.
	The Prime Minister told Newsnight this week that universities would be substantially better off as a result of his policy. The Education Secretary told the House last week that the costs of the Bill will all be met from the higher education budget and not from additions to that budget. If that is right, the universities would actually be worse off. Who is rightthe Prime Minister or the Education Secretary?

Tony Blair: That is complete nonsense. The universities will be about 1 billion a year better off as a result of higher fees, although those fees are not to be repaid until the graduate actually graduatesand on a fair basis. What we have also done, however, is reintroduce maintenance grants for poorer students, so one part of the money goes to universities and another part goes to poorer students. That surely is a fair system, and better than the existing system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is sticking to his existing policy, but let me just quote what the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university said after a meeting with the Conservative education spokesman:
	Tory education spokesman said to me, 'It does not matter whether'
	our policy
	'is the right policy or the wrong policy . . . Once we are in power we can then start to really think sensibly about what we should be doing.' Does he also recall, a short time ago when he became leader, saying about the politics that he was going to implement:
	No narrow . . . opportunism for us.?
	What is this if not the most risible opportunism that we have seen?

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister may regard sticking to election promises as opportunism: we do not. He has conspicuously failed to endorse what the Education Secretary said last week. I put again to the Prime Minister what the Education Secretary said. He said that the extra costs associated with the Government's Bill will be met from the higher education budget and not from additions to that budget. The costs add up to well over 1 billion. The fees will raise about 900 million. If the Education Secretary is right, is it not clear that universities will be worse off?

Tony Blair: The extra fee income goes to the universities, which is why they are going to be able to increase their funding per student by about 30 per cent. The other money goes to the students themselvesespecially those from poorer backgroundsand is also to ensure that they do not have to pay anything up front. That is why it is a better deal for universities and studentsI would have thought that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have got that. As for saying that he is going to keep to his policy, he has not been able to keep to his policy over even the past few weeks, never mind the past few years. Let me repeat what he said the other day. He said, We now have no proposals on tuition fees. How can that lie with the comments made by his education spokesman, who said that he is committed to scrap all fees? Which is it: scrapping all fees or no proposals?

Michael Howard: I have told the Prime Minister exactly what our policy is. This debate is about his policy, and we will be voting next week on his proposals and his attempts to bully his hon. Friends into breaking their election promise. Is it not absolutely clear that the top-up fees policy is a complete dog's breakfast and that the Prime Minister and his Education Secretary do not even know from one day to the next what their proposals involve or who is going to pay? Will it be students, will it be taxpayers, will it be the universities[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, let the Leader of the Opposition speak. I am telling the hon. Gentleman not to shout across the Floor. He is not entitled to do so.

Dennis Skinner: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Michael Howard: Should not the Prime Minister simply admit that he has got it all wrong and that he should scrap his Bill, instead of forcing his Members of Parliament to break their election pledge?

Tony Blair: What we should do is continue with a policy that gives universities an extra 1 billion a year, that relieves all families of the obligation to pay up-front fees at all and that operates a fast, fairer system of repayment so that, for example, a graduate who earns 18,000 a year after graduation pays just 5 a week. We should proceed with a proposal that reintroduces maintenance grants and support for the poorest students. That is fair for universities, fair for middle-class families and fair for families with lower incomes. Surely that is the right thing to do, as the OECD said yesterday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right: yes, next week is a test for the Government, but it is also a test of the credibility of the Opposition, and he has just failed it.

Stephen Pound: This morning's dispatches from the French capital confirm the unfortunate impression that there are those among our Gallic cousins who are sneering at the prospects of a UK Olympic bid. I am far too communautaire to indulge in low abuse of a nation that has problems of its own, but what can the Prime Minister do to convince those of us who still harbour a smidgen of cynicism that the UK Olympic bid is realistic and attainable?

Tony Blair: Anybody who heard the presentation made by Barbara Cassani and her team last week would have heard a bid that is technically good and that gives this country the chance of hosting the world's greatest sporting event in the world's greatest capital city and of doing that immensely well. The more that people look at the bid, the stronger they see it. As for commenting on anyone else's bid, of course that would be quite wrong.

Charles Kennedy: Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Bush referred to the search for
	weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities.
	Can the Prime Minister confirm that that is what the Iraq survey group is now searching for and, in the process, explain to us all exactly what that means?

Tony Blair: The President was referring to Dr. Kay's reportthe Iraq survey group reportwhich has already indicated evidence of the concealment of weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Iraq survey group, of course, looks not merely for the programmes, but for the weapons themselves.

Charles Kennedy: We began on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister then moved on to finding weapons of mass destruction programmes, and, last night, the President spoke of the search for
	weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities.
	As the rhetoric of both the Prime Minister and the President on this vital issue has kept shifting, does that not underline yet again, at the end of the day, the need for an independent inquiry into the entire basis on which this country was taken into the war in Iraq?

Tony Blair: The Iraq survey group, as I said a moment or two ago, continues the search not just for programmes and the evidence of concealment of those programmes, but for the weapons themselves. It is important that it continues to do that. As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubtabsolutely no doubtthat those weapons existed. That has been said not only by this Government and the United States Government, but was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and its inspectors. It is the job of the Iraq survey group to find out what has happened, which it will do. When it comes up with its final report, we can debate it.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large amount of the antisocial behaviour faced by people in all constituencies across the country is perpetrated by the under-16s? If the fixed penalty notices that are issued to 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 are successful, will he consider extending them to the under-16s?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. The new measures will obviously give the police and others important powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. She is also right in saying, however, that there is another issue to address since much antisocial behaviour, I am sorry to say, is caused by youngsters under the age of 16. It is precisely for that reason that we have the power to extend fixed penalty notices to them. We are considering the time scale in which we can do that. I very much hope that we do it as soon as possible.

Stephen O'Brien: Given that the Prime Minister's rationale for war in Iraq, as he confirmed just a moment ago, was based on the presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, how does he reconcile that with our battle tanks and armoured vehicles being sent into the front line without the requisite chemical filters?

Tony Blair: With regard to equipment, I know that there is a particular issue in respect of Sergeant Roberts, and again I express my condolences to his widow. In respect of some of the other issues, the National Audit Office looked carefully at the whole question of equipment in the Iraq conflict and whether that equipment was proper or not. It found that, on the whole, it was a tremendous success. The conflict involved a huge logistical operation that was difficult to carry out, but it was carried out. In respect of specific issues, we consider each and every one of them, and we will look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as well.

Harry Barnes: When the Conservatives were in office and introduced the initial student loans Bill, their higher education spokesperson was described by Lord Beloff as the Pol Pot of academia. In order to tackle some of those problems, and they are being tackled by the Government's proposals, instead of scrapping student debt after 25 years, why not tackle them from the other end? When people have immediately graduated and are in greater need of assistance, why not provide them with a holiday from debt? That would assist many people, including mature students.

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. We are trying to meet his concerns in two ways. First, we are relieving families of the obligation to pay up-front fees. As I think I said to him the other day at our parliamentary meeting, about 26 per cent. of students whose parents are not eligible for help with the up-front fee at the moment have to fund part of it out of their own pocket. The abolition of the up-front fee will help them.
	Secondly, in relation to my hon. Friend's specific point, it is precisely because we recognise that people need more help at the outset of their career that we have changed very significantly the basis on which the combined maintenance and fee loan is to be repaid. At the moment, students repay their maintenance loan at the rate of more than 17 a week if they are earning 20,000 a year. For both maintenance and fee, we are halving that rate. We are trying to achieve what my hon. Friend articulates, but are doing it in a way that does not mean that we have a shortfall on public finance that we cannot make up.

Desmond Swayne: Last year the New Forest basic command unit was reduced by five police officers. This year it is to be reduced by a further five officers. Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite increased resources and higher taxes, public services are deteriorating?

Tony Blair: Obviously I do not know the precise details of the basic command unit in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I have here the police numbers for Hampshire as a whole: there are more than 240 more police officers than there were in 1997. I will write to him and tell him exactly where those extra officers are. I also point out to him that, alongside extra police officers, there are more teachers, more nurses and more jobs in his constituency, and on every indicatorthe health service, the education service and crimeit is better than it was in 1997.

David Chaytor: Are not the overwhelming majority of students in the United Kingdom already subject to variable tuition fees? Is there the slightest evidence, anywhere in the UK, that variable fees have deterred students from doing part-time degree or further education courses, or joining the Open university?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are now variable fees for postgraduates and part-timers. One of the things that we are able to do in this package is introduce some support for part-time students. By setting a sensible cap and giving universities freedom, while giving a huge boost to students from poorer backgrounds, we will increase the possibility of such students having the right and the ability to go to university.

David Amess: The Prime Minister is aware that the week before Christmas I visited my constituent Majid Narwaz, who was being held in jail in Cairo with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and of the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The Prime Minister will be aware also that at the end of the trial, when a verdict was expected, the court adjourned for five months. He can well imagine how the families felt when those four individuals were brought to court on Christmas day, for a two-minute hearing, and the case was adjourned, yet again, until 25 March.
	Will the Prime Minister now agree to meet the families of those men, and will he personally contact President Mubarak to intervene in this human rights issue, because the Government representations so far have been to no avail as far as the families are concerned?

Tony Blair: I understand the issue for the families of those involved in the trial. It is important to explain the background to the case: four British nationals were detained on 1 April 2002 and accused of being involved with the Islamic Liberation party, which has been outlawed in Egypt since 1974. I say that simply to indicate that this is obviously an issue of huge sensitivity for the Egyptian authorities as well as our own.
	I have instructed our ambassador in Cairo to call on the Egyptian Foreign Minister to express our concerns about the case. I know that Baroness Symons met the families last week to hear, first hand, of their concerns. I fully understand their disappointment at the delay, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will closely keep track of the case. I ask him to understand, however, that because of the history of these issues in Egypt, this is a sensitive matter for the Egyptian authorities too.

Kevin Brennan: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 200 MPs from all parties have now signed early-day motion 200 calling for pension compensation for Allied Steel and Wire workers and others? Why should our constituents have to put up with a pensions injustice that civil servants, Ministers and Members of this House would never tolerate for themselves? Is it not a disgrace that despite the fact that the Conservatives have been pretending in public to support those workers, in private the party's pensions spokesman has written to his Back Benchers, telling them not to sign the early-day motion?

Tony Blair: I am aware of the situation facing members of Allied Steel and Wire in relation to their pension scheme. Obviously, I have great sympathy for them and for other scheme members. As my hon. Friend will know, we have announced proposals to establish, first, a pension protection fund, which will be the first ever insurance scheme for defined benefits in the United Kingdom, so that employees do not have the injustice of seeing their pension rights disappear if their scheme winds up. Secondly, there will be a more active pensions regulator to focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration, and on encouraging best practice. I understand the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Pensions have been meeting representatives and affected members from Allied Steel and Wire. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all that we can to resolve the situation.

Friends Meeting House

Anthony Steen: If he will make an official visit to the Friends meeting house in Totnes.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so.

Anthony Steen: If the Prime Minister had come to meet the Quakers and to see those peaceful people, he would have heard that their primary concern is the increasing level of council tax and the way in which it funds an army of bureaucrats and administrators rather than front-line services. Will he acknowledge that Devon county council employs as many people as the European Commission in Brussels, and that the managing director of Torbay council is now paid 40,000 more per annum than a Minister of State in the right hon. Gentleman's Government? The Prime Minister could cut council tax at a stroke

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Friends are better behaved than the hon. Gentleman.

Tony Blair: When the hon. Gentleman began his question, I temporarily turned to the wrong part of my file. I do not want to comment on Devon county council; I am not as aware of the facts of who is employed there as the Quakers. My understanding is that that county council, along with others, has received a very significant increase in the amount of grant from central Government. We believe that the additional amount of grant is important for local authorities. I am sure that when he heard the Quakers' complaints he told them that his party voted against the extra investment that we allocated to local authorities.

Engagements

Laurence Robertson: Does the Prime Minister value the work carried out by special schools up and down the land that care for children with special educational needs? If he does value their extraordinary work, will he come out in opposition to the plans of the Labour-Lib Dem-controlled Gloucestershire county council to close the only special school in my constituency, Alderman Knight, which is greatly valued not only by the parents and teachers in the area but by the pupils, who really need the school?

Tony Blair: I cannot comment on the particular school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as I do not know the facts about it. In the end, as I hope he realises and other hon. Members appreciate, it is important that these decisions are taken locally and that they are determined by the local process of democracy and consultation. I can only point out to himthis I do knowthat the Gloucestershire local education authority budget has received an extra 670 per pupil in real terms compared with 199798. It is in the end up to the council how to spend that money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is surely right for the Government to point out that we have substantially increased education funding. Once again I point outI say this with no rancourthat he and his colleagues voted against that extra spending.

Paddy Tipping: Although unemployment in the Nottinghamshire coalfield has fallen by 60 per cent. over the past six years, does the Prime Minister agree that there are still small groups of people who find it difficult to get to work? Will he look closely at today's rural bus challenge announcement of 20 million, which will allow services such as the Boughton Boomerang and the Sherwood Sweeper to be set up to get people from coalfield villages to employment sites?

Tony Blair: I was not aware of the boomerang service[Hon. Members: Why not?]although I have a few boomerangs out myself. The 20 million rural bus challenge will be important, because the point that my hon. Friend emphasised is correct: there is no doubt that unemployment has fallen and employment has risen substantially in the past few years, but one of the biggest difficulties, especially in rural areas, is people being unable to get to work because of difficulties with local transport. I hope that the additional investment in rural bus services will help to rectify that problem.

BILL PRESENTED

Sustainable Communities

Sue Doughty presented a Bill to require the drawing up and implementation of a strategy to promote sustainability among local communities; to make provision for the inclusion of targets and indicators in the strategy; to make provision for councils to implement the strategy in their area; to make provision in respect of the powers of electors in relation to the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 40].

Universal Funded Pensions

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require people to save for a guaranteed pension sufficient to avoid reliance on means-tested benefits.
	The biggest problem facing every developed country is how to pay for pensions as people live longer and have fewer children. Britain used to be better placed than our continental neighbours to cope with that problem, because we had built up more investments to pay for our future pension liabilities than the rest of the European Union put together. Now, both our state and private pension systems are in crisis. The Government's 5 billion a year pension tax, increased means-testing and the stock market fall have combined to undermine retirement provision. Company schemes are closing to new members and millions of people are simply not making remotely sufficient provision for their old age.
	My Bill would introduce a universal funded second pension to replace the present, largely unfunded, state second pension. Everyone, including the self-employed, would be required to have a pension fund into which they would make payments throughout their working lives sufficient to provide an income in retirement, which, together with their basic state pension, would enable them to avoid being dependent on means-tested benefits.
	I started out opposed to compulsion in the sphere of pensions, but we already compel people to contribute towards a state second pension; moreover, we compel prudent people who voluntarily save enough for their own future to pay again through tax to support the less provident who do not save enough and rely on benefits. I concluded that it would therefore be preferable to require everyone in work to contribute towards a pension at least sufficient to ensure that they would not have to depend on means-tested retirement benefits.
	To enable everyone to build such a fund during their working life, they would receive a flat-rate rebate from their national insurance contributions paid into their fund sufficient to finance the standard level of pension. Just as employers underwrite the pension provided by defined benefit occupational schemes, the state would guarantee to top up each person's pension if for any reason their fund did not perform well enough to provide a pension at the standard level.
	The result of my proposal is that everyone would own their own pension fund. Ownership brings choices and incentives. Once people have their own pension fund, they will find it far easier to put in additional savings. In Australia, the introduction of mandatory superannuation accounts led to a doubling of additional voluntary savings. The effect in this country should be even more marked. The current system of pension credit means that more than three-quarters of the population know that they will face means-testing when they retire, so they will lose 40 per cent. of every extra 1 of pension for which they have saved. Once everyone knows that their minimum contributions to their pension fund will lift them above the means-tested level, they will have every incentive to save more than that basic minimum. Indeed, the pension credit, which extends the disincentive up the income scale, will become redundant.
	Ownership of a pension fund will give more people more choice about when they retire. They will be free to do so once their fund is sufficient to prevent them from being dependent on state benefit. However, it will give them a double incentive to work beyond the normal state pension age, as every extra year that they work will mean that another year's contributions will be paid into their fund, and there will be a year's less pension for it to finance. There is evidence that people with defined contribution pension funds work longer, whereas groups without such provision retire earlier. Without such incentives, the Government could meet their target of increasing to 60 per cent. the share of pensions funded by savings only by raising the state pension age in line with longevity to make it compulsory for people to work longer. It is better to give people freedom while providing them with an incentive to work longer.
	Requiring everyone to have their own pension fund will cut the amount of savings absorbed by the cost of administering pension funds. Over half those costs are due to the cost of acquiring customers. Requiring everyone to have their own fund would eliminate the cost of persuading them to set one up; the amount of advice required and the cost of compliance would be greatly reduced; and the remaining costs would be spread across a far larger pool of savings. My Bill would also make a significant cut in the cost of providing annuities, as I explain in my pamphlet, Save our Pensions, which is available from the Social Market Foundation for 15, or free at my website, www.peterlilley.co.uk.
	Currently, people who contract out of the state second pension must use their fund to purchase an annuity lasting as long as they live. Insurance companies providing those annuities must provide against the risk of unlikely but conceivable increases in life expectancy, for example as a result of the invention of a golden bullet cure for cancer. If those increases in life expectancy do not occur pensioners will have paid too much for their annuities. The need to make such provision would be sharply reduced if the Government shouldered the risk of excessive increases in longevity at the far end of the spectrum by paying the second pension on a pay-as-you-go basis for people over 85. People's compulsory savings would only have to fund a fixed-term pension or annuity covering the first 20 years of retirement, which would be disproportionately cheaper than an unlimited annuity.
	At the same time, my Bill would help to tackle the greatest unfairness in our annuity pension system. At present, people on lower incomes, who tend to have a lower life expectancy, subsidise the better-off, who tend to live longer. My Bill would require the national insurance recording system to provide life offices with summarised information about people's lifetime income, similar to the information in someone's tax code, so that they could relate annuity rates to the life expectancy of different income groups. People in lower paid and manual jobs would get better annuities or pensions for a given amount of savings than people on higher earnings.
	My Bill would not only ensure that everyone had a comfortable and dignified retirement but would bring about the largest extension of wealth ownership this country has known since the spread of home ownership. It would give more people more choice about when to retire, and more incentive to save and work longer. It would generate a massive flow of committed long-term saving and investment, would enable some of the burden of providing for an ageing population to be spread globally and, ultimately, would reduce the largest single burden on the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. David Cameron, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. John Maples, Mr. David Ruffley and Andrew Selous.

Universal Funded Pensions

Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to require people to save for a guaranteed pension sufficient to avoid reliance on means-tested benefit: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 41].

Opposition Day
	  
	[3rd Allotted Day]

Case for a Civil Service Bill

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move,
	That this House calls on the Government to introduce a Civil Service Bill in this parliamentary session.
	It is a pleasure to make a guest appearance at the Dispatch Box, which I have encountered in the past. It is always an honour to represent one's party on the Front Bench, and I am grateful to my old friend the Leader of the Opposition for inviting me back to speak on this particular subject, about which I feel strongly, and which it is extremely suitable for the House to take on at the present time. I suppose that it could be said that my right hon. and learned Friend is hoping that I shall practise for the role of an elder statesman, because this is an elder-statesman-type subject, which addresses the problem of the British constitutionwhich is being interfered with, and not being interfered with very successfullyand the style of our public life and trust in its integrity, about which, as hon. Members of all parties realise, many among our electorate feel acutely.
	The subject is suitable for me, as a former Minister and former Opposition spokesman, because I have seen an astonishing degree of support for the proposals in the Bill that we commend to the House. The Bill was proposed by an all-party Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee, on which there was only one dissenting voice. I hope that its Labour Chairman will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker. I assume that it is supported by the Liberal Democrats; they have always supported the principle behind it. It is certainly supported by the Conservative party, and, with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the party, I will repeat our commitment to it. It is supported by leading civil servants and by successive chairmen of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The appeal of the Bill seems to be overwhelming, with the great and the good of every political complexion supporting it. That is hardly surprising, given that its purpose is to entrench the core values of the civil service; to give clear powers and responsibilities to the Civil Service Commission; to defend the integrity and independence of the civil service; and to set limits on the number of special advisers, stipulate what they cannot do, and allow Parliament to have a say on it. Even the Government will say that they support the ideas in the Bill in principle. We are having this debate because they have been saying it for so long, doing so little about it, and acting in such contradiction of the principles in the Bill, that we all realise that they are speaking with forked tongue.

Andrew Dismore: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: We shall see with what tongue the hon. Gentleman speaks.

Andrew Dismore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has so far failed to mention part 2 of the Bill, which is couched in identical terms to the ten-minute Bill that I introduced yesterday. He claims that his hon. Friends all support the Bill that he advocates, yet 21 of them voted against my Bill. Will he urge those who seem to have changed their minds between the original tabling of the Bill that he advocates and that of mine yesterday to change their minds again and to support my Bill on its Second Reading on 30 January? Or can he explain why there is a difference of view?

Kenneth Clarke: I was present in the House yesterday. I did not vote against the hon. Gentleman's Bill, nor did I vote in favour of ithe appeared to have more than adequate supportbut I assure him that I was in favour of his being given leave to introduce it. He is obviously going to vote with the Opposition today given that, as he says, the terms of his Bill are replicated in the Bill that we are commending. I have to say, however, that his Bill represents the least important part of our Bill, which perhaps shows that although he has the courage of an independent Back Bencher, he has only a bit of it, as he fastened on the one point that, as most members of the Select Committee would agree, is not at the heart of the matter.
	I have read statements made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will open the debate for the Government. I know that the Government will say that they support the impartiality and integrity of the civil service and that they undertake to make some progress towards consultation and so on, but they have been saying that for more than seven years.
	We are pressing the point because, despite their protestations, the Government have politicised the civil service as never before. Party political control over the formulation of policy is steadily developing, and party political control over the presentation of policy has become almost absolute.
	It is no coincidence that we are considering the matter on the eve of the report by the Hutton inquiry. In no way will I attempt to prejudge the outcome: I am genuinely waiting to hear what Lord Justice Hutton has to say about the matter that he was asked to addressthe circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. However, the evidence given to the Hutton inquiry throws such a light on the way in which decisions were reached and the relationship between the non-elected, non-accountable powerful figures whom the Prime Minister has brought into No. 10 and the civil servants who should have shared public responsibility for the matter that today is the day for the Government to be driven away from saying, We will consult. We agree in principle. Action is required if we are to win back the public's confidence in our political and public service system.

Several hon. Members: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who can tell me whether he is indeed the Chairman of the Committee whose draft Bill we are commending.

Tony Wright: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right person, and it is a joy to see him back on the Front Bench.
	Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman reverts to old Front-Bench habits and just for the sake of fairness and illumination, will he remind the House that the old Treasury and Civil Service Committee proposed a similar Bill in 1994 and that the Government of the day, in which he was a Minister, did nothing about it?

Kenneth Clarke: I quite agree. Before I become more partisanI assure the hon. Gentleman that I will become partisanI appeal to hon. Members such as him because important issues are involved. There are a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who agree and who can take an interest in these matters over and above ordinary party politics. There are Labour members of the Public Administration Committee who have been pressing for a civil service Bill for a considerable time. There are Members on the Labour Benches who agree with me about the need for parliamentary reform and strengthened parliamentary control over the Executive. They are people who should take the matter seriously and add to the pressure on the Government. The issue matters to us all, whichever political party we represent. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that none of us can remember a time when public regard and respect for politics and public trust in the public service has been so low. The case for a civil service Bill has been building up since it was first put before the last election.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that before the last election, the Conservative Government had its own troubles, when the Opposition were pressing us on various matters and invented the word sleaze and when I was dogged by the problems caused by the sexual adventures of some of my colleagues and the financial adventures of one or two Back Benchers. We were accused of most things, but we were not accused of politicising the civil service, which is what has happened now. We respected convention when conflict entered our relations with our civil servants, and we did not use public money for party political propaganda. We had half as many special advisers as the current Government. None of our special advisers had authority over members of the civil service, and there was no question of anything interfering with the civil service's right to give impartial and frank advice. Frankly, I knew perfectly well that some of the best civil servants with whom I worked had never voted Conservative and would never vote Conservative, but I respected the professionalism with which they gave their advice, and the public respected their integrity when they were able to see the factual explanation and defence of Government policy to the public.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his duties. He said that he always treated the civil servants who gave him advice with the utmost respect. Did he therefore condone what the current Leader of the Opposition did when he dismissed Derek Lewis as head of the Prison Service?

Kenneth Clarke: There are occasions on which Ministers are entitled to take a view on the dismissal of public servants. I was a Minister for 18 years, and during that time I asked for two of my civil servants to be replaced. I could only ask the permanent secretary to look into the difficulties: in the one case, it was because the man was burnt out; in the second case, it was because the man was deliberately ignoring Government policy. Those things occur. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman can only think of one example that got into the public domain and that I can remember only two such experiences, in neither of which was any case established that Ministers were behaving improperly or compromising the integrity of public servants, shows how far we have moved in the seven years since the Labour Government took over.
	I should like to give some illustrations of what has happened since Labour took office and embraced a wholly different, rather Americanised approach to controlling the business of Government. The number of special adviserspolitical appointments accountable to Ministershas more than doubled since we were in power. It is now more than 80, and more than 20 of those are based in No. 10, acting for the Prime Minister. Many of them combine their policy role with making public or private statements to the media on behalf of the Government. The best estimate on available evidence is that about 40 are often involved in covert briefing of the media on behalf of their Ministers.
	That system was introduced on the back of the almost complete removal of the civil service press officers whom we had always used when we were in office. Within two years, all but two of the Government press officers had vanished from Whitehall. Civil servants had been replaced by people quite a number of whom had worked for the Daily Mirror and many of whom had political backgrounds, and much of the media briefing was taken over by the so-called special advisersspin doctors as the press called themwho became the prime part of the Government's presentations to the public.

Kevin Brennan: rose

Shona McIsaac: rose

Kali Mountford: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way in a few moments.
	Two of those people, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, were actually given Executive authority over civil servants in No. 10. Their positions went far beyond their formal positions, as I shall explainbut I give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford).

Kali Mountford: After more than a decade in office, was it not possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government covertly to have encouraged the appointment of people whose opinions coincided more happily with theirs? Could that not have happened, and is it not preferable for the public fully to understand the role of special advisers, rather than having the more secret operations that seemed to take place when I was a civil servant?

Kenneth Clarke: I genuinely think that that was one of the problems when the Labour party came into office. It had been in opposition for 18 years, had been seduced by American methods of campaigning and was somewhat attracted by the American style of Government. Some of the new Ministers came into power believing that the civil service had somehow been politicised by their predecessors. There is always the danger that if one is in opposition for too long, one starts believing too much of one's own propaganda. However, I give the hon. Lady an assurance, confident that she will not be able to challenge me on the basis of any source in respect of my experience in the GovernmentI was there for the whole timethat we did not do that. We were not allowed to do that. The conventions, which we regarded as constitutional conventions, did not allow us to do it. Our permanent secretaries would have been outraged if we had suggested that they should do it; and the Cabinet Secretary would have insisted that we did not.
	In respect of my former Department, Labour Ministers took over a civil service that was rather looking forward to a change of Government and the challenge to their professionalism of being able to deliver public-service Executive tasks to a new set of Ministers. Far too often, however, civil servants found that the new Ministers were deeply suspicious of the civil service and did not take their advice. They were surrounded by a lot of apparatchiks who had enjoyed themselves in opposition and now believed that they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of government. It took six to 12 months for any kind of proper relationship to be established. If things had got better after the first six months, perhaps we would all be moving in the same direction, but I regret to say that, during the past seven years, instead of the Government's learning from experience, things have got worse.

Kevin Brennan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when Bernard Ingham gave evidence to the Public Administration Committee, he said that he did exercise those sort of powers when working under Mrs. Thatcher. The civil service Bill which the Select Committee has proposed, does, in fact, retain Executive powers for special advisers at No. 10. The evidence that we heard suggested that we should worry not about the politicisation of the civil service, but about the possibility that the politicisation of a civil service Bill would kill it.

Kenneth Clarke: Bernard Ingham was a civil servant. His only political activity before he took the job was as a Labour local government candidate. He took on the duty of advocating the policy of the Government of the day, which is the duty of all Government information officers. Bernard Ingham regarded himself as bound by the convention that he was not to engage in party political advocacy of the policythough all too often it seemed to his opponents that he did.
	Bernard Ingham's deputy was the lateand, in my opinion, greatpress officer, Romola Christopherson. She was one of the most entertaining press officers I worked with during my controversial time at the Department of Health. Romola Christopherson had leftish views. She wasI hate to shock hon. Membersby no means a Blairite: she was undoubtedly old Labour, as I discovered when I got to know her well enough for her to reveal her true political opinions. The stories about the relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Romola Christopherson when she was based in No. 10 were legionindeed, I could not share them with the House in the time available for a half-day debate. I am digressing already.
	I well knew Romola's left-wing views, but she worked with me to present professionally the case for health service reform, as she was charged with doing. She was still in post as a Government press officer when the Government changed, but she was one of those who fell in the Government's purge of press officers and she was replaced by a political appointee. The rules were that she would advocate professionally the policy laid down by her Ministers and the Government of the day; that she would not do so in a party political fashion or make party political points; and that she would have nothing to do with attacking the Labour alternative. All that has vanished and been destroyed by the activities of the special advisers.

Tam Dalyell: rose

Shona McIsaac: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I have just reminded myself that I have only half a day, so I want to make a little progress. I apologise to the Father of the House, who has just risen, but I do not want to give way for a short while.
	I am trying to make Labour Members understand that it is their parliamentary duty to put some pressure on their Front Benchers to take some action on this matter. Let me help the House, including Labour Members, to judge the ministerial response that we shall hear from the Minister responsible for the civil service. He will ask why we are making such a fuss and say that the Government agree with the motion in principle and are about to consult on the matter. He will tell us that the Government will take into account the necessity to protect the integrity of the civil service. I shall not give the full record, but just touch on it.
	The Labour party first committed itself to introducing new legislation on the civil service before 1997, when it set up a joint commission with the Liberal Democrat party. The commitment was to give
	legal force to the code which should be tightened up to underline the political neutrality of the civil service . . . to clarify lines of civil service and ministerial responsibility.
	That was when the Labour party had joint commissions with the Liberal Democrats: alas, poor Paddy, we remember him well. I remember Lord Ashdown's remark to me that the trouble with dealing with the Prime Minister was that Tony always believed something when he said it. However, that was Labour's commitment before 1997.
	When the Labour Government took office, they confirmed their commitment in their July 1998 response to a House of Lords report. By 2000, we had reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was chaired first by Lord Nolan and then by Lord Neill. Nothing had happened by that time, except the steady emergence of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Powell and the other special advisers in Whitehall.
	In its sixth report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life wanted a timetable for the implementation of the Government's commitment to a new civil service Bill. The Committee wanted a target date to be set for the introduction of such a Bill. One would have thought that, to a target-obsessed Government, that should have been attractive.
	The Government responded to that report in July 2000. They confirmed their commitment to proceeding along those lines. The same commitment will be repeated today.
	By November 2001, Sir Richard Wilson, the then Cabinet Secretary, was getting impatient. He told the Select Committee on Public Administration, presumably with the authorisation of Ministers, that consultation on a civil service Bill would start in the new yearthat is, in 2002. By the time of his valedictory speech to the public service in 2002, Sir Richard was still repeating that the Government were publicly committed to a public service Bill. Shortly thereafter, an issues paper was promised by the Government.
	The same process has been repeated ever since. In 2001, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who will wind up today's debate, gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Committee by that time was into its third Chairman, Sir Nigel Wicks, who is just about to leave that post. The Minister assured the Committee that the Government remained committed to a civil service Bill. In its ninth Report published in April last year, the Committee recommended that an early process of public consultation on the contents of a draft Bill should begin, and that the Bill should receive pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
	Time and again, the Government have given in-principle commitments to such a Bill but have done nothing about it. I shall not give a full list of examples, but that is the background to the latest step by the Public Administration Committee, which the Opposition are simply commending and adopting. That all-party Committee, in its first report of this Session, published a draft civil service Bill. That draft has been approved by Sir Nigel Wicks and his Committee on Standards in Public Life, and it has been accepted by leading retired public servants outside the House. The Government have responded by saying that their own draft Bill will soon be going out to consultation.
	In my opinion, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will say, when he responds to my remarks, that the Government will of course go out to consult.

Douglas Alexander: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving my speech.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am not going to give the speech, and indeed he may alter what he was about to say. However, he has been pretty consistent so far in saying that the principle of this matter was always right and that the Government were about to consent to it.
	I must tell the House that I have reached the stage where I do not believe Ministers. The Government are not acting in good faith. There comes a point where endless hesitation becomes opposition, and when procrastination becomes positive deception. That is what happens when people keep saying that they are in favour of something but do nothing about it. It is plain that the Government want to kick the proposition that is a new civil service Bill into the long grass, and that no grass in the political world is too long for it.
	However, such a Bill will inevitably have its day, and it is possible that some members of the Government support it. Some theories suggest that the Prime Minister is personally in favour but keeps getting talked out of it by his more unscrupulous cronies and more obdurate colleagues. Other theories have it that the Deputy Prime Minister is genuine when he waxes lyrical, in answer to questions, in favour of a new civil service Bill, but that it is the Prime Minister who wants his political entourage at No. 10 to retain control.
	If we are to be told that there will be more consultation, we have been told the same thing for more than seven years. The time has come to move on. No doubt we will eventually get something for consultation, but when this Government consult, they do not legislate. The consultation will proceed, and it will amount to another long period of total indecision. That is why the Opposition motion is commendably precise and to the point, requiring the Government to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. That is what the Government are resisting.

John Bercow: The position adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend has the advantage that he has always practised what he preaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and I worked as political advisers for him, and he told us at our first interviews when we arrived that our duty was to offer political advice to Ministers, but that we must not issue instructions to career civil servants or make public political speeches. If we had forgotten that distinction, I doubt very much that our feet would have touched the ground on our way out.

Kenneth Clarke: I entirely agree. I am very grateful to both of my hon. Friends for their work as special advisers. We never had any trouble, because it would not have crossed the minds of my special advisersany more than it would have crossed minethat their role was to give instruction to Treasury officials, or to give alternative briefings on policy subjects to the media. That did not happen.

Brian White: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Shona McIsaac: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I might, if I do not exceed my time too much.
	I have been, I think, statesmanlike throughout my remarks. I have set out the position in a dispassionate way. I have asserted no principle of civil service integrity and impartiality that any Minister would dare to contradict. I have not described constraints on the roles of special advisers that any of them would disavow in public. However, I want to touch on why this matter is becoming urgent. As I have said, the behaviour, practice and style of this Government, and the experience of people interested in the constitution of public affairs over the long period for which this debate has lasted, have made the case in favour of a new civil service Bill over and over again. There is now an urgent need for such legislation.
	I have mentioned Mr. Alastair Campbell and Mr. Jonathan Powell. A mixture of pressure and despair finally caused Mr. Campbell to go and earn his living in some other way. Mr. Jonathan Powell is still there in No. 10 Downing street, with his executive authority over large parts of the civil service intact.

Tam Dalyell: rose

Kenneth Clarke: No doubt Lord Justice Hutton will next week set out the details of the role of those two gentlemen in certain events. So far as I can judge, the two of them over the past seven years have been more powerful than the vast majority of members of the Cabinet. They have had more executive authority over officials and, through those officials, over Government Departments than any other political appointees ever had previously. I suspect that they know far more about what goes on inside Government than two thirds of the members of the Cabinet.
	The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), is in his seat, looking delphic, as he usually does. He might have had more power than Jonathan Powell and Alistair Campbell, but I suspect that he had some almighty battles with them and that they strongly prefer the present Foreign Secretary, who is more inclined to do what he is told. I would concede that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a more powerful political figure than Mr. Jonathan Powell because, when push comes to shove, he is more powerful than the Prime Minister in quite a lot of important matters. For the rest of them, however, I doubt it. Some might stand up for themselves, but the ability of the minor Secretaries of State down the table even to argue with Alastair Campbell in his pomp, or Jonathan Powell in his present capacity, is very limited. Let us look at the fate of our colleague, the present Secretary of State for Defence, who seems like a man at the end of the plank looking back at the cutlasses, wondering when he is going to be asked to jump. The real problem with his involvement in the issues surrounding Mr. Kelly, whatever Hutton comes up with, is that it is quite plain that the poor old Secretary of State for Defence was not really allowed to know what was going on. He was not crucially at the centre of events, hence his pathetic attempts to explain in his evidence what his personal role was.
	No doubt the Secretary of State for Defence will at last have the final responsibility of carrying the can not just for the Prime Minister but for all those special advisers whose e-mails make such unpleasant reading and who attended those weekend meetings at Chequers that really decided everything. Lord Hutton has already complained, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)anticipating one findingthat the key meetings that weekend were not minuted. My right hon. Friend was a Cabinet colleague of mine for many years, and we were not allowed to have meetings with no minutes. We could not even make a telephone call without civil servants on the other line making notes on what we were saying. They would say, It's essential, Minister, that everybody should know what you are committing the Government to, and what is being decided. What was the reason for having meetings of Cabinet Ministers and political appointees with no minutes? We do not have to be conspiracy theorists to work out that they wanted no one to know what they were talking about. We never would have known that, had not a senior permanent secretary had the courage to do what his Secretary of State had not felt able to: go along to the Hutton inquiry and say that the decision to name Mr. Kelly was taken at an unminuted meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. I shall go no further into that, because there have been other records of it.

Tam Dalyell: Are we quite certain that Mr. Jonathan Powell, over the selective leaking of a law officer's letter in the Westland affair, behaved absolutely impeccably?

Hon. Members: Charles Powell.

Kenneth Clarke: I think that the hon. Gentleman means Mr. Charles Powell, pronounced pole, who is the brother of Mr. Jonathan Powell, pronounced Powell[Laughter.] Who says that every element of class war has gone from British politics? Mr. Charles Powell was a career civil servant, a diplomat. He was subject to the civil service code and civil service discipline. He was not a non-accountable, non-elected, politically appointed freelance like his brother Jonathan Powell who, as chief of staff, has enormous influence and was heavily involved in the affairs on which Lord Hutton is about to report.
	I remind the House of the other great affair that accelerated the application of pressure for the Bill and, I am sure, helped to drive the Select Committee in the direction that it took. It is not so long since our experience with the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)then Secretary of State for Transporthis special adviser Jo Moore and a press officer called Mr. Martin Sixsmith. The shambles that then occurred was well reported by committees of investigation, and I shall not bore the House with their reports. Jo Moore became notorious because she made a shatteringly tasteless remark on the opportunity to use the events of 11 September to get rid of bad news in and around the Department. She became so obsessed with the political minutiae that the bad news that she wanted to get rid of was not noticed, and it can no longer be remembered by anyone, it was so pathetic. She was so carried away by power that she thought that she directed even the most minute statements going out of the Department.
	My suspicion is that Miss Moore had quite excessive influence on that disastrous Secretary of State, who made so many errors, and that her relationships with half the Department for Transport were absolutely deplorable. It is quite obvious that there was a three-way breakdown in communications, which the relevant Select Committee report described. Not only were the then Secretary of State, Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith at odds with one another; everyone was leaking information against one another to the press. The odour from that experience, the style of that experience and the impression that it gave of new Labour's management of a Department were quite deplorable, and it is no wonder that the Phillis inquiry was set up. Mr. Phillis, who produced his final report just a day or two ago, said in his interim report that there had plainly been a three-way breakdown in communications. Yet again, that urgently underlines the need to codify and entrench the proper relationships between members of Departments, because we have had such disastrous experiences of things going wrong.
	The people involved in that affair are not alone. The dismissal of Derry Irvine, the overnight abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor and the belief that it was acceptable to put in a former flatmate of the Prime Minister to take on that role, and to change the country's constitution without further ado by an overnight press release, were a tragic demonstration of how not to go about the process of government. All the officials and judges involved were so taken by surprise that the Ministers and their cronies who produced the idea did not even realise that the law obliged the new Lord Chancelloreven if he did not want to be called Lord Chancellorto put on his robes and go along and sit in the House of Lords if the second Chamber of Parliament was to be able to sit. Those Ministers are still, presumably, taking the advice of the civil service on exactly what practical consequences follow from the sad, sad quarrel between the Prime Minister and his former pupil master that led to that momentous, historic move.
	Hon. Members know perfectly well that matters have moved in a very undesirable direction in the past few years. We have heard enough of Ministers' protestations that they understand, that they agree in principle and that they are going to consult. We have an opportunity to legislate and have been invited to do so by one of our Select Committees. We should act on that and not allow the Government to deflect us, because there are those in the Government who are strongly against legislating. I advise hon. Members to read the speech of Lord MacDonald of Tradeston in a House of Lords debate in May 2002 to see the opinion of some of the tougher, more hard-nosed members of the Government. I have great respect for Lord MacDonald, who is more competent than most of his colleagues, and has been brought in to sort out quite a number of messes in his time. However, his background as a trade unionist, a business man and then a Member of the House of Lords has perhaps not made him as sensitive to democratic accountability as some of us think that we should be. [Laughter.] I see that Members on both sides know Lord MacDonald.
	There was no dissembling in Lord MacDonald's case. He told the House of Lords:
	The Government believe that the existing framework of rules and safeguards works well.[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 726.]
	The Government have also said:
	Special advisers need to be able, on behalf of their Minister, to convey instructions and commission work from the civil service.
	I think that the MacDonald faction in the Government is prevailing at the moment. The Government's response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life shows that they do not accept the Bill that has been put forward. They accept a Bill in principle, but they do not want to legislate on key matters, particularly the role of special advisers.
	The Government's response explains that they prefer the Order in Council system to legislation for regulating what special advisers can and cannot do. What is the difference in practice, the House may ask, between a code enforced by Order in Council and legislation of the straightforward and simple kind recommended by the Select Committee? There is one crucial difference: there is no parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council. However much we might wish to amend them, they are passed at the discretion of Ministers, whereas legislation would bring the matter to the House and give MPs of all parties a say. The Government also prepare codes of conduct, of which we have plentythey keep revising them. The Government prefer codes of conduct to enshrining things in legislation? Why is that? Because MPs might otherwise exercise a view in the House.
	The HouseMPs of all partiesshould indeed take a view and say that Governments, of any party, should accept the constraint of the rules that give the civil service the right to give impartial advice and separate civil servants from the party political process.

Shona McIsaac: rose

Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry not to give way to the hon. LadyI have not been singling her out in that regard.
	One reason for timely action is that if by chance, and rather to my surprise, the Prime Minister does not survive the next fortnightalthough it is not for me to speculate whether he willhe will obviously be replaced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is any chance of that happening and we want to protect the integrity of the civil service, we had better act quickly. Do not get me wrong: the Chancellor is an honourable man but he is the political control freak to end all control freaks. Most of his former Cabinet colleagues say that it is bad enough working with him, but working for him will be impossible. He is the man who made the Red Books incomprehensible. He is the man who has altogether taken over the presentation of policy. His presentation of the public finances exceeds the ambitions of any creative accountant in obfuscating the true position and putting everything off balance sheet as much as possible.
	When the Chancellor first reached the Treasury, his approach to things was probably the worst in the Government. He would scarcely talk to the departmental officials waiting to serve him. For about the first six months, policy was made in the Park lane hotel room of his then colleague, in the company of Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan. It was difficult enough for the Treasury to discover what the economic policy of the Government wasthe Cabinet had no chance whatever, but at least they saw him each day while he was making it.
	If the Chancellor ever got the supreme job, we should not entertain the idea that he would dream of relinquishing the present style of party political control to the absolute degree. He works harder than the Prime Minister. He has more knowledge of detail. No Minister in any part of Whitehall would be safe from his political apparatchiks seeking control, so we had better act first.
	The Bill is straightforward. I do not see how anyone can argue against it in principle. It strengthens the civil service commissioners, gives civil servants who feel aggrieved a right of appeal and gives the civil service commission the power to investigate complaints. It entrenches the principle of selection on merit in the civil service and the duty of civil servants to give fearless and impartial advice.
	The key thing about the Bill is that it will strengthen parliamentary oversight of the whole system, which is what the Government most dislike about the Select Committee's proposalsthat Parliament would have a say in what special advisers can and cannot do, and that it would have a say in the protection of the impartiality of the civil service. I am glad to say that the Conservatives are committed to doing that, which is why I am honoured to speak for my party at the Dispatch Box. We shall not do as the Government didcommit ourselves to the measure in opposition and fail to carry it out for our first seven years in government.
	We are prepared to subject ourselves to the constraints at this stage. I have the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would legislate to scrap the Order in Council system, that he would reduce the number of special advisers from its present level and that he would not seek to give special advisers executive authority over civil servants.
	In our case, we are prepared to enact that promise now, because those constraintsproper constitutional behaviour and regard for the standards in public life that our people expect of all parties in governmentare ones that we are prepared to vote for now. The only people blocking progress are the Government, who will try to procrastinate and will, I suspect, turn down the offer of every other element in the House that would enable them to endorse standards that they claim to defend but that they have actually done more to damage during their period of office so far than any Government of modern times.

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the Government's commitment, in its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to publish a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation; acknowledges the contribution made to the discussion of these issues in recent days by the Public Administration Select Committee; notes the failure of any previous Conservative Government to legislate for the Civil Service; and welcomes this Government's commitment to reforming and modernising the Civil Service to ensure that it continues to deliver a first class service to the people of this country.
	I am sure that both sides of the House will welcome the return of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to the Dispatch Box for what he described as a guest appearance, after almost seven years when he could not be persuaded back into the shadow Cabinet of the past two leaders of the Conservative partyor, indeed, of its present leader. Instead, along with past leaders of the party the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)he has accepted a place on the newly established Conservative party advisory council. So if hon. Members want advice on how to lose their home, their job and an election, they now know to whom to turn.
	On the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate today, I have the impression that he has been enjoying himself on the after-dinner circuit since his departure from government, so how fascinating to see that he was finally tempted back to the Dispatch Box to discuss the case for a civil service Bill. That is fascinating indeed, given that during his time as Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Minister of State for Health, Paymaster General, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Education and Science, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, not once did the Conservative party or the Government of whom he was a member legislate for a civil service Bill.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Alexander: No. I will give way in due course.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made some specific points about the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration, and made claims about the politicisation of the role of special advisers. He even upheld the Thatcher Administration as a model of Cabinet government. I shall endeavour to address each of those points during my remarks.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would seek consensus before making more partisan points, so I shall set the context for the debate before following his lead. The Opposition motion's demand for civil service legislation is made against the background that over two centuries we have seen three major reforms of the civil service: the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853; the Haldane report of 1918 and the Fulton report of 1968.
	By any reckoning, each was a major milestone in the history of the civil service, but there has never before been a civil service Act. Indeed, as the present Cabinet Secretary stated last year,
	we have lived without one for 150 years.
	The civil service Bill will, I believe, rank alongside those past reforms, so what is in the Bill matters much more than the simple fact of having a Bill.
	Last September, when the Government published our response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we committed ourselves to publishing a draft civil service Bill for consultation once we had received the Public Administration Committee's proposals for legislation. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Committee produced a draft Bill and published it on 5 January. So we have had 16 days: the Opposition had 18 years.
	The Public Administration Committee has wisely and consistently recognised the need to seek to build consensus around such a piece of landmark legislation. That is why its report of 5 Januaryunlike the express terms of the Opposition motionrecommended that the Government should publish a draft Bill in the current Session of Parliament to allow for appropriate consultation. I am happy to give the Chairman of the Select Committee that undertaking today: the Government will publish a draft Bill in the current Session of Parliament.
	The Government are of course mindful that both Houses will take a close interest in the draft Bill. It is an important constitutional matter and there will be full consultation with both Houses. However, detailed decisions about the form of that consultation have yet to be taken.

Henry Bellingham: Obviously, one of the organisations to be consulted will be the First Division Association. Is the Minister aware that the association has complained constantly about the bullying and harassment of civil servants by the Government? Does he agree that the case of Ms Weleminsky is an example that should be looked at? What are his comments on that case?

Douglas Alexander: There is a matter before the Standards and Privileges Committee. I shall be delighted to rehearse the views of the First Division Association in relation to special advisers. It will not make comfortable listening for the hon. Gentleman.
	I turn first to special advisers, a question which took up a considerable part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. He started by making claims with regard to numbers of civil servants. He said that they had doubled under this Government; he failed to mention that they had doubled under the previous, Conservative Government. It is perhaps more interesting to bear in mind the comments of the previous Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Dinton, in his evidence in July 1999 to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He said:
	I do not think the senor civil service of 3,700 people is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers. That is not what is happening and I do not see it as creeping politicisation.

Andrew Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that that self-same Cabinet Secretary, now retired, has just come out in favour of a Civil Service Act?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman, who is himself a former special adviser and so brings some expertise to our deliberations, is right in recognising that the noble Lord is in favour of a civil service Bill. He was in favour of a civil service Bill when he was Cabinet Secretary, so the suggestion that that is a revelation must be taken with a pinch of salt.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman moved on to talk about the role of special advisers in communication, the central charge being that it was somehow inappropriate and illegitimate for special advisers to speak to the media. I return to the words of Lord Wilson, again before the Neill Committee, on 15 July 1999, when he added a valuable perspective. He said:
	The fact is that not just under this Government but under previous Governments in my experience political advisers have spoken to and briefed the media. One of their jobs is to help brief the media in ways which permanent civil servants would regard as not appropriate, given their commitment to be politically impartial.

Shona McIsaac: Twenty-three Tory Members were once special advisers. Does my hon. Friend think that they never gave any briefing of a political nature to the press or civil servants?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend anticipates my contribution to the debate. I shall be happy to look at the specifics of the Order in Council under which the special advisers under this Administration and those under the Conservative Administration operated in having discussions with civil servants.
	However, the substance of the attack by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was about the nature of the powers under which civil servants now operate, and in specific terms the role of special advisers in relation to those powers. Much was made of the role of Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell and the 1997 Order in Council allowing up to three special advisers in Downing Street to be appointed with executive powers.
	Yet again I turn to Lord Wilson, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman cited, apparently in defence of his own position. The noble Lord described the Order as
	putting those three posts back to where all special advisers were before 1991.
	As the right hon. and learned Gentleman was confident enough to admit, it is important to look at the detail in these matters. The 1997 Order in Council simply removed the restriction confining advisers to giving advice to Ministers, which was not put in place until 1991. Not only was there a politically appointed chief of staff under the Conservatives between 1979 and 1985, but many Conservative special advisers who are now serving as Conservative Members operated under similar, if less clearly defined, arrangements when they were special advisers. In his long discussion of the role of the Powells and the Poles in British public life, the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention that point.

Kenneth Clarke: With the greatest respect, that is a misquotation. Before 1991 there was not a code of practice. It was introduced in 1991. That, I think, was the point that Richard Wilson was making in the quotation that the Minister gave us. He is not, I trust, asserting that before 1992 any politically appointed special adviser had executive authority over a civil servant. Not only would the then Cabinet Secretaries have been outraged, but no Minister ever suggested it.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for recognising that the rules were indeed changed at that point. It is for the Conservatives to justify the regime under which theyand indeed their special advisersoperated during that time.As I was saying, in his long discussion of the Powells and the Poles the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not address those particular facts.
	The point about special advisers' powers has a contemporary relevance for the House, given the terms of the Bill. I was intrigued to examine the contents of the Conservatives' Civil Service Bill, which includes provisions, in clause 5(3), that up to two special advisers with executive powers may be appointed to the Prime Minister's Office.
	The House will be interested to know that the Conservative party's previous spokesman on these matters, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, regrettably, has left the Chamber, gave evidence on this exact matter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
	There is the constitutional precedent which if you like has been set by the Order in Council that was granted in 1997, giving a special enhanced status to Jonathan Powell and to Alastair Campbell. And as you will have seen from the documentation that I submitted not only do we object to that, we actually are of the view that if we were to bring in civil service legislation it should prohibit that sort of activity.
	I presume, therefore, on the basis of his own evidence, that the previous Conservative spokesman on this issue will shortly vote against the Bill of the current Conservative spokesman. Clearly, a week is a long time in Conservative policy making, as we discovered at Prime Minister's Questions on the issue of tuition fees.
	As for the more substantive point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised about the role of apparatchiks in our public life, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is not in the Chamber, because I know that this is a matter of long-standing concern to him. During the Conservative leadership contest of 1993 his campaign team, together with the First Division Association, condemned the way in which the special adviser to the person who was then Home Secretary, but is now the Leader of the Opposition, was working at the campaign headquarters of the then Prime Minister. When the special adviser to the now Leader of the Opposition was asked by a reporter why she was at the Major campaign HQ in the middle of the afternoon, she explained, I have been getting in to the Home Office early and coming here in my lunch break. As the spokesman of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, Andrew Roberts, declared at the time:
	These rules were made quite clear, so there is no excuse for the Major campaign so flagrantly abusing them.
	As the Government have introduced both the code of conduct for special advisers and the model contract for special advisers, we will take no lectures from the Opposition on special advisers' probity in public life. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to discuss the need for civil service legislation in terms of ministerial propriety, so be it. He was kind enough to ventilate some of the sexual peccadilloes of his colleagues when he was serving in office. Let him explain more substantive matters. Let him explain the case for legislation with reference to the ministerial resignations of his erstwhile colleagues the former Member for Tatton, forced to resign and then humiliatingly defeated as the embodiment of Tory sleaze. Let him comment on the conduct of the former Member for Beaconsfield, forced to resign over cash for questions, and the former Member for South Thanet, whose special adviser was in the Chamber this afternoona Member who resigned to fight his libel action with the trusty shield of fair play.
	If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to discuss the Bill in relation to probity in the direction of civil servants, which formed a central part of the charges he laid before the Government today, let him begin by explaining the conduct of the Conservative Deputy Prime Minister who, when based in the Cabinet Office only months before the 1997 election, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, attempted to order civil servants to work on party political tasks, obliging the then Cabinet Secretary to deliver an unprecedented rebuff.
	Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the wider need for the Scott inquiry, the Downey inquiry and the Nolan inquiry during his 18 years in office. Let him explain why he feels that it fell to the present Government uniquely in their time in office to introduce and publish the ministerial code for the first time, to introduce the model contract for special advisers and to publish the code of conduct for special advisers.
	The Government in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman served for 18 years did irreparable damage to the public life of this country. His speech ignored that. He ignored the fact that he has a past to account for, and that the British people held him to account in 1997.

Gordon Prentice: Leaving aside the right hon. and learned Gentleman's past, he alleged that important decision-making meetings are not being minuted. That charge was also ventilated in the Financial Times last week by the journalist Sue Cameron. In what circumstances are decision-making meetings not minuted by civil servants?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, there are circumstances in which Ministers meet without a civil servant presentfor example, within the precincts of the House, where decisions could well be taken between Divisions, with major matters of policy being determined with colleague Ministers. In that sense there is no iron law that in no circumstances must a decision ever be taken by a Minister without a civil servant being present. However, with the greatest respect for what I understand are his 34 years on the Front Bench, it was rather risible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the period of the Conservative Administration was somehow a model of collegiate Cabinet government.
	Now that we have introduced some of the facts, let us try to deal with the substance of the charges that the right hon. and learned Gentleman laid before the House. In essence, he was arguing that there has been a grotesque abuse of power by the Labour party since it came to power in 1997. His real grievance is the enduring grievance of the entire Conservative party, I would suggest, which is about not the abuse of power but the loss of power by the Conservative party. The speech we heard was not as much a scrutiny of power held as a lament for power lost.
	Conservative Members seem to feel that a massive injustice was perpetrated against the Conservative party on 1 May 1997. They seem to feel that Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell somehow stole the election from the Conservative party. They see two landslide defeats for the Conservatives as some kind of unfortunate temporary aberration, which will soon be undone. They do not even recognise the fact that the British people reached a clear-headed judgment on the basis of policies implemented by the Conservative party, and that they are in danger of losing a third general election on exactly that basis.
	The real reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with so distinguished a career behind him, chose to address the House today on the matter of the Civil Service Bill is that actually, I fear, he may not be able to defend the Conservative party positionon Europe, for example, or indeed on the health service. He made admirable speeches

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister is showing his great adeptness at getting further and further away from the subject on which I was pressing him. May I bring him back to the Bill for a second in the course of his dissertation? Can he explain at this stage why the Government, who say that they are about to consult, reject the idea of legislation that would give the House any supervision over the code of conduct for

Lawrie Quinn: Sixteen days.

Kenneth Clarke: It is not only 16 days; the Government have been promising action on this for seven years, and the response has already been given to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government have already said that they reject the case for legislating on the role of special advisers and their code of conduct; they prefer Orders in Council. May we have an argument in defence of thatassuming that it remains the Government's policy? It was stated only a few weeks ago.

Douglas Alexander: I fear that during his period away from the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to keep up to date with the provisions and positions of the Government. As I told the House today, we are committed to introducing a draft civil service Bill. I myself, in my evidence before the Committee on Standards in Public Life, made it clear that we were looking for a succinct Bill that would place on a statutory footing not just the civil service code of conduct but the special advisers code of conductthat addresses the specific point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. None the less, he raises an important questionwhether we are at this stage ready to legislate or whether, working on the explicit direction of the Public Administration Committee, we should recognise the need to build consensus on this matter. In that sense I make no apology whatever for introducing a draft Bill at this stage because I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want the opportunity to contribute to the work that is under way on the Bill.

Brian White: It was no surprise that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would not take an intervention from me to ask him for a definition of a civil servant, because in the evidence to the Committee no one person could agree on a definition. Does the Minister have a definition of a civil servant on which there would be consensus across the political spectrum?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is aware that this matter caused some interest in the Public Administration Committee. I suggest to him that the definition offered by a number of royal commissions in the past
	a servant of the Crown, who does not hold political or judicial office, who is employed in a civil capacity and whose remuneration is paid wholly out of money voted by Parliament
	would be an interesting starting point not just for the Government but for the discussions that are taking place as part of the consultation.
	However, in response to the substantive point made by my hon. Friend, it is important to recognise that on such matters of detail it is vital that there be a wide degree of consensus not just across the House but in the other place.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister has forgotten a statement of policy that he has already cleared, I suspect, giving a detailed response on special advisers which he just slipped away from. May I refer him to the Government's response to page 10 of the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in September 2003? I suspect that he was the Minister who cleared this statement:
	The Government's position on legislation for the Civil Service is set out in its response to recommendation 6. It believes that any legislation would need to be short and succinct and that the issue of what special advisers can and cannot do is best dealt with in Codes of Conduct rather than on the face of a Bill.
	That is the Government's policy position. The Minister will not even acknowledge that he is aware of it, let alone defend itand he claims he is willing to go on and consult about the details.

Douglas Alexander: I am only too happy to clarify that point. One can of course refer on the face of a Bill to a code of conduct, which then finds expression outside the main piece of legislation. Enabling legislation has a long tradition of being able to do exactly that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to cover the fact that the present Government have moved significantly by introducing not only the model contract for special advisers but the code of conduct for special adviserstwo matters that did not trouble him during his 18 years in office.
	As I was saying before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the real matter of substance which explains the appearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today is the fact that the Conservatives feel a profound sense of grievance, and the reason why they are addressing themselves to such matters is not solely a concern for the fate of the civil service, but rather a concern for the fate of the Conservative party. In reality, this is part of a premeditated strategy by the Conservative party to encourage cynicism about politicians and public life in this country.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose

Douglas Alexander: I will give way in a minute or two.
	That is why Conservative supporters have recently received a communication from the leader of the Conservative party, stating:
	In a low turn out election (estimated at 35%) if we get all our supporters out to vote then we win the major share of the seats in each region.
	This debate is just the latest move in a coldly cynical ploy by the Conservative party to grow cynicism, and it does the good reputation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman only harm that he should choose to play a leading role in the strategy being devised, no doubt, by Maurice Saatchi in Conservative central office.
	The principles that underlie the Government's approach to civil service legislation are indeed long established. They are the importance of maintaining the impartiality and objectivity of the civil service; defence of the principle of appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competitionthe bedrock of our system of public administration for more than 150 yearsand recognition that special advisers have a valuable role to play in our system of government. We will therefore introduce a draft civil service Bill in the course of this Parliament that reflects these principles.
	Our civil service is world renowned. The Government uphold an absolute commitment to maintaining the political impartiality and integrity of the civil service. That has been our position since coming to office and it will remain our position in the years to come.

Paul Tyler: I shall return to the Minister's speech later. It was a very thin speech, but in contrast the very robust speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was a most exciting occasion and we warmly welcome him back to the Front Bench. We look forward to his contributions from the Front Bench on Iraq, on Europe and on other issues with which we often find ourselves in agreement with him. His performance this afternoon entirely justified the comment that he is a veritable giant amongst pygmies. Let us have more giants and fewer pygmies on the Front Bench in future.
	It is a great occasion when we can welcome yet more repenting sinners in the House. The Conservative Government never admitted the need for legislation clearly defining the role of civil servants, protecting their integrity from party political interference and delineating the clearly different role of political special advisers. It is great to have them on our side, even if it has taken them seven years to reach this position since the Labour party and Liberal Democrats came to that conclusion in spring 1997, as has been said, in the so-called Cook-Maclennan accord.
	Of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and his new leader have what I think in the Home Office would be called previous form in the whole issue of the integrity of the civil service. I refer to the note produced by Sir Robin Mountfield in April 2002, based on his experience in the Cabinet Office, which he headlined, Politicisation and the Civil Service. He referred specifically to the vital issue of public appointments, which have not yet had sufficient attention in the debate this afternoon. I think we must all agree that it is critical for the integrity of our civil service that the public appointments process is full of the natural independence that we would require for those who take an important role in an independent civil service. Sir Robin said:
	The second, and only other, route was open to external competition, supervised directly by the Civil Service Commissioners. A Minister could then only accept the recommended candidate, or the first recommendation if more than one were judged acceptable. He could not (since the Commissioners' rules were changed following Ken Clarke's preference for Derek Lewis over other 'acceptable' candidates as head of the Prison Service) choose between 'acceptable' candidates: if he was unwilling to accept the first name, the only course would be to re-run the competition from scratch. These arrangements were re-stated explicitly, and they leave no room (as it was alleged some new Ministers wished to do) for them to parachute their own candidates in.
	The point about that was precisely that the inadequacy of the arrangements before that incident led to that invidious situation. I must again suggest, therefore, that the problem is not new: it was there during the Conservative Government's regime and, by coincidence, it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who found himself in that precise position.
	Indeed, that episode was referred to time and again in the evidence to the Select Committee. For example, on 13 November 2003, Mr. Jonathan Baume, the general secretary of the First Division Association, said:
	There was one exception made by the Civil Service Commission which was the famous case of Derek Lewis's appointment, which was notI hasten to adda political appointment. It was Kenneth Clarke's perception that an individual who came several down the ranking was the person he felt was the right person for the job. When Michael Howard succeeded him within no more than six months, he took an instant dislike to this individual, felt that he did not have the skills he needed in the Prison Service and it ended in an almighty disaster for the Government of the day.
	The appointments issue is critical to the legislation that we are now considering and to the integrity of the civil service. There were more references to that episode and the inadequate situation that arose at that period, during the Conservative Government's administration of this country, at the seminar hosted by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and his Committee in October.
	It is certainly not for me, because I have no ministerial experience, to say whether there was ever a golden age. I doubt it. I suspect that, gradually over the years, this process has inevitably made the position of the civil service more and more difficult. The integrity and independence of the civil service are things to which every Member of Parliament should pay particular attention. However, it is also important to recognise that that slow evolution has been the subject of concern in the civil service as well as among parliamentarians. I refer particularly to the comments of those who have had the honourif it is an honourand certainly the very onerous duty of heading the professional civil service. For example, in evidence to the Wicks committee, which has already been referred to, the then Sir Richard Wilson said:
	I had not realised until recently that the qualification
	that special advisers may only advise
	was only added in 1991 . . . throughout the 1980s, special advisers had no limits on what they could do in law . . . What the recent Order in Council actually does is just to remove the restriction on advicein relation to the three so-called executive poststhat were introduced in 1991, and put those three posts back to where all special advisers were before 1991 . . . we have been improvising over a period of years.
	The tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution this afternoon is an acceptance that improvisation is not enough. The situation in which we find ourselves today, seven years into a new Government, proves the value of the much more sensible approach that was agreed between the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties in 1997in the light of the experience of the Conservative Government, not in that of the period since this Government came to power. We should therefore consider the Select Committee's proposals on their merits, based on the experience not just since May 1997, but from the period going right back through the 1990s and 1980s to which that very important evidence refers.
	I turn now to the Wicks committee report. A very good case is made throughout the Wicks committee's ninth report for clear delineation and clear designation of the differing roles of career civil servants and political advisers. We need not just watch those wonderful Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister programmes to recognise that the differing role, the delineation between those roles and the extent to which Ministers rely on different advice from those two sources are of extreme importance.
	I particularly want to draw attention to the advice that has been given through the Committee on Standards in Public Lifethe Wicks committeeas well as the Select Committee, on the need to get some simple definition on paper, so I come to the code of practice. It is true that a number of people have suggested that the code of practice, under Order in Council, is sufficient to deal with the problem. Frankly, I do not think that that stands up to examination. It does not stand up to examination by those who have considered the issue from an independent point of viewwhether in giving evidence to the Wicks committee, the Wicks committee itself or our own Select Committee. It is clear from the advice that we are given on all sides that those at the very highest level of the civil service are themselves now persuaded of the need to do what is proposed.
	Again, I turn to the evidence given by the then Sir Richard Wilson. At paragraph 7.28 of the Wicks committee report, he said:
	Rather than engage in abstruse discussions about what special advisers can do, we should say clearly and firmly what they cannot do and, beyond that, leave each Cabinet Minister to determine how they want to deploy them.
	We need to have something written down in black and white, in statute, agreed by Parliament. Similarly, in evidence to the Wicks committee, Sir Andrew Turnbullit would be fair to say that he has been converted to this viewsaid:
	I do not know that it would make a huge difference. I think it is seeking the reassurance that the long-standing kind of values and structure cannot be changed by stealth. In the actual day-to-day practice, I do not think there would be a great deal changed . . . But
	this is critical
	an Act would underpin
	the civil service code. He continued:
	it would give assurance that, over 10 to 20 years, you will not suddenly wake up and find you have a world that you did not like and you do not quite know how you got there.

Brian White: Once of the pieces of evidence given to the Public Administration Committee from the civil service unions was that such a civil service Bill should apply to the whole civil service. Most of the talk today has been about the senior civil service, and the hon. Gentleman is continuing that. Does he think that a civil service Bill should apply to the whole civil service? If so, would he address that in the point that he is making?

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I notice that he was in a minority of one on a number of important issues in the Select Committee, and it is an important part of the role of any Member that, if he dissents from his colleagues in a Select Committee or any other Committee, he can express his views. However, the draft Bill that the Select Committee has produced is a very good start; it makes that definition quite clear, and I am happy to abide by that advice. I hope that, in a minute, the Chairman of the Select Committee will be able to address the kind of logic and rationale behind its recommendations.
	Of course the Select Committee is not the only part of this building that has been addressing the issue. My noble Friend Lord Lester has introduced his civil service Billthe Executive Powers and Civil Service Billand I understand that the intention is to consider it on Second Reading in the other place on 5 March. I summarise, but his Bill is designed to
	place under the authority of Parliament executive powers exercised by Ministers of the Crown by virtue of the royal prerogative; to make provision relating to the appointment and conduct of, and general duties relating to, civil servants and special advisers; to establish a procedure for the making of certain public appointments; and for connected purposes.
	I see no reason why the draft Bill that is effectively before this House and the Bill that my noble Friend hopes will receive a Second Reading in the other place in March should not be considered together before a special joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny as quickly as possible. We could then really make progressnever mind all this business about holding yet more consultation. The Government are always consulting, but they use that as a very neat way to delay decisions. If they really wanted to make progress, they could do so now. I see no reason, after waiting seven years for the commitment in the Cook-Maclennan agreement to become a reality, why we should wait for yet more consultation beyond that which has already taken place.
	On 16 January 2004, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, said of Ministers:
	My impression is that they believe we are doing something that is rather sensible and they have been very receptive to our plans.
	If that is the impression that the hon. Gentleman received from the Government, he clearly was not given it by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because his speech gave us the impression that parliamentary discussion of what should take place is the last thing in which he wants to be involved. He wants a long conversationout in a field, no doubtas far away from Parliament as possible. He wants to take the matter away from all the other controversy here. However, if we, as parliamentarians, do not have the opportunity to discuss the issue, given that a cross-party Select Committee has decided that it is time to move ahead, what is happening, for goodness' sake?
	I referred earlier to the extremely useful seminar on 29 October that was organised by the Select Committee. My only complaint was that it took place on my birthday, so I was rather busy with other matters and was not able to attend everything. At the seminar, Sir Andrew Turnbull said:
	The Government does not believe that the contribution of Special Advisers should be treated as a numerical issue. Rather than setting a limit the right response is to be transparent about numbers and about roles and responsibilities.
	Those sound like weasel words, because as today's edition of The Independent faithfully reports, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has discovered by posing parliamentary questions to the Government:
	The cost of the Government's spin operation has increased five-fold since Labour came to power . . . The communications budget in Whitehall has jumped from 575,000 in 1997 when Tony Blair entered Downing Street to 2.4 million this year.
	A further fact in the article makes a significant contribution to our discussion:
	At least half of this year's budget of 2,458,000 will be spent on 'emergency communications', the Cabinet Office minister, Douglas Alexander, said.
	What sort of emergencies do the Government anticipate in the current year to require such an increase?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the findings of the Phillis report, which says that disbanding the Government's information and communication services should be a priority?

Paul Tyler: We will all have to examine that report carefullythe right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has already referred to it. It obliquely suggests that there should be more transparency in government, but it does not show that the Government are accountable to Parliament. They are not accountable to a group of journalistswhether or not briefings are online, on-screen or attributablebecause they are answerable to us.
	I do not wish to prejudge the Hutton inquiry's conclusion, but it is self-evident from the evidence given to the inquiry that our mechanisms in Parliament to question what goes on in the subterranean intricacies of government and to find out what has been said by civil servants to special advisers and by special advisers to Ministersand all around that netare weak and inadequate. It took only a few days after the release of several of the e-mail communications that Lord Hutton was able to extract from the labyrinth of Whitehall to demonstrate that we parliamentarians, through all our various agencies to question Ministerswritten and oral parliamentary questions, Select Committees and all the restare not doing our job properly.
	The Bill must be all about the Government's accountability to Parliament. The blurred distinctions that have undermined the reputation of political impartiality in the civil service and the independent integrity of individual civil servants are serious. The Minister used the expression Crown servant, but that is an anachronism. In a parliamentary democracy, we should refer to such people as servants of the Crown in Parliament. We have said for hundreds of years that the constitution of the United Kingdom is based on the concept of the Crown in Parliament, so it is crucial that the matter be brought back into the parliamentary arena.
	We do not want more conversations and consultations. The Select Committee has produced a draft Bill as the basis for a discussion, so we should get on with that. There must be statutory protection for civil servants now. There must be statutory delineation of the differing roles to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred. The Minister's inadequate response did not give me cause for encouragement that the Government will make progress on the issue, and if we hear from the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, I hope that he will give us hard evidence of his optimism that the Government will move forward. We need a draft Bill so that Parliament can get on with the job.

Tony Wright: I am delighted that the House has this opportunity to discuss the draft civil service Bill that was recently produced by the Public Administration Committee, which I have the privilege to Chair. It is the first time, certainly in the modern era, that a House of Commons Committee has produced its own Bill, and the first time that an Opposition have used such a Bill as the basis of an Opposition day debate. I shall assume that they are doing so in the spirit of constructive support and not simply because it offers a convenient opportunity to embarrass the Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave a virtuoso performance. Every time that he speaks, he must notice a surge of pleasure and relief among Labour Members because his party was congenitally unable to elect him as its leader. My assumption about that is still just about intact.
	The draft Bill was produced on a cross-party basis after a long process of consultation. It is not a partisan measure, and deserves not to be treated in a partisan manner, but I accept that that is a particular challenge for the Housethe Groucho Marx song, Whatever It Is, I'm Against It, probably provides the most concise summary of how we usually conduct oppositional politics in the House. On this occasion, I hope that both sides of the House will want to try to construct a consensus on the proposal. The subject is not, and should not be, party political, because it is essentially a matter of public interest.
	It is appropriate that we are discussing the proposal now because it is almost exactly 150 years since the great Victorian reformers, Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, produced their historic report on civil service reform, which was designed to sweep away patronage and install a meritocratic public service in its place. The report is a model of racy radicalism, and their description of the character of the unreformed civil service is still worth recalling. They say:
	Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired. Those whose abilities do not warrant an expectation that they will succeed in the open professions, where they must encounter the competition of their contemporaries, and those whom indolence of temperament, or physical infirmities unfit for active exertions, are placed in the Civil Service, where they may obtain an honourable livelihood with little labour, and with no risk; where their success depends upon their simply avoiding any flagrant misconduct, and attending with moderate regularity to routine duties; and in which they are secured against the ordinary consequences of old age, or failing health, by an arrangement which provides them with the means of supporting themselves after they have become incapacitated.
	The institution that the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms created has served this country well. The civil service enshrines a tradition of public service that has been a model of its kind. It embodies principles that we take for granted, but should not. Just this week we had the report of the independent reviewagain, recommended by the Public Administration Committeeset up to consider the Government Information and Communication Services. It is revealing that in its search for the solid ground on which to build, amid a collapse of trust in Governments, politicians and the media, the review group turned to the tradition of an impartial civil service. Indeed, it said:
	The tradition of Civil Service impartiality is a key bulwark on which to rebuild trust, and steps need to be taken to preserve and reinforce it.
	The proposal for a civil service Bill also builds on that tradition. It is unfinished business from Northcote-Trevelyan, made more urgent by the many recent changes to the civil service and the machinery of government. Let me answer the charge that the proposed Bill would prevent such changes or that those of us who support it have somehow fallen victim to the mandarin's embrace. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing in what is proposed that prevents change, development and evolution in the civil service, and of a radical kind. That is already happening and it will continue. This is not a civil service protection Bill. Propriety and performance both matter. They were central to Northcote-Trevelyan and they should be central to our discussions on the civil service now.

Brian White: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the central charges against the civil service is that it has been policy led rather than results led, and that the delivery part of the civil service has lagged behind?

Tony Wright: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The demands of delivery have posed a challenge for the civil service in modern times. Governments are right to want to make the machine's delivery ever better. My argument is that that imperative for better deliverywhat I call performanceis not in any sense in conflict with propriety considerations. Both are important and we should be able to secure both. I would argue that the facts of change make it even more imperative to define the framework of principle within which it takes place, and to do so through Parliament. That is the heart of what is proposed in the Bill.
	It is time for the civil service to cease to be the creature of law that is made by the prerogative and to become the creature of law that is made by Parliament. That constitutional proposition is at the centre of the proposal for civil service legislation. A Government who will be remembered for their constitutional reforms need not be hesitant in embracing this one. The civil service has a duty to serve the duly elected Government of the day, but it is not the property of that Government; it should belong to Parliament on behalf of the people, which is what the Bill proposes.
	The Bill's approach to particular issues flows from that underlying proposition: a civil service commission should have extended powers of oversight of key principles and practices, and should be set up by Parliament and report to it; codes for civil servants and special advisers should be presented to Parliament and approved by it; the number of special advisers that a Government want should also be approved by Parliament; and the key boundary lines within the Government should be identified and properly patrolled. Having done that, it should be possible to have far more sensible discussion about some matters than has been the case recently.
	Having established a framework, we can discuss what should be contained within it. For example, let us have no more silly attacks on special advisers, who in the Daily Mail lexicon of political abuse have come to rank somewhere between asylum seekers and paedophiles. Let us have no Dutch auction to determine precisely how many there should be. They are not new. Indeed, the other day I came across a reference to special advisers in Barbara Castle's diaries for the 1970s, when she was having one of her constant battles with officials in her Department. She wrote:
	I thanked God for the allies I have got in the ministerial team, and for the special advisers.
	From all the evidence received by my Committee and the Wicks committee, it is clear that special advisers are thought to contribute to good government.
	There is a serious debate to be had about the extent of political appointees in government in this country. We sit at one end of the international spectrum on that. The other day I was introduced to the Australian Cabinet secretary, who turned out to be a political appointee. In Canada, which the Committee visited recently, it turned out that the people we call permanent secretaries, whom they call deputy ministers, are also political appointments. A mature democracy should be able to have a grown-up discussion about the proper relationship between the elected Government and the permanent Government, without the cry of politicisation always going up to prevent that debate from taking place. The proposed Bill expresses no view on those matters, except to say that Parliament must be involved in the consideration of them.
	I said that what is proposed is unfinished business from the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853. Let me remind the House of the concluding paragraph of that report in which they say:
	It remains for us to express our conviction that if any change of the importance of those which we have recommended is to be carried into effect, it can only be successfully done through the medium of an Act of Parliament. The existing system is supported by long usage and powerful interests; and were any Government to introduce material alterations into it, in consequence of their own convictions, without taking the precaution to give those alterations the force of law, it is almost certain that they would be imperceptibly, or perhaps avowedly, abandoned by their successors, if they were not even allowed to fall into disuse by the very Government which had originated them.
	Finally, they say:
	A few clauses would accomplish all that is proposed in this paper, and it is our firm belief that a candid statement of the grounds of the measure would insure its success and popularity in the country, and would remove many misconceptions which are now prejudicial to the public service.
	Those few clauses that were argued for 150 years ago are what we now proposeto anchor the civil service in Parliament. An impressive coalition has been assembled around that proposition which now needs to be acted on: the civil service commissioners, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the civil service unions, at least one Committee of this House, distinguished former senior civil servants and an array of informed commentators. Indeed, the Government should be added to the list as they have indicated their support in principle and have undertaken to produce their own draft Bill. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that that will happen in this Session after seeing the Bill produced by the Committee.

Oliver Heald: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that in the Minister's peroration, he changed that statement to in this Parliament? We shall certainly be pressing him further on that.

Tony Wright: I did notice that. I thought that that reference was a slip of the tongue. I am sure my hon. Friend will take the earliest opportunity to revert to his original form of words.

Douglas Alexander: I am more than happy to clarify what I said. I have always understood that this Session of Parliament is within the bounds of this Parliament. In that sense, I can assure my hon. Friend that the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box stands and that the draft Bill will be produced within this parliamentary Session.

Tony Wright: I am delighted by what the Minister has said, and I am glad that the Bill that we have produced has kick-started the process.
	The Government have the opportunity to be the first to enshrine key governing principles in legislation. That will have huge symbolic and practical importance, and it will make a major contribution to strengthening the public trust in our political system that we all recognise is so important.
	This issue is a huge challenge for Parliament and, indeed, for all the political parties. Those who have supported the proposed Bill have done so on the basis that it could be an agreed measure, free from the normal party dog-fight, and I hope that that is the spirit in which the Opposition support it today and in which the Government will respond. In fact, it is a condition of the measure's success.

Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the terms in which he is speaking in support of his Bill. I put on record the fact that my colleagues and I support his aim of making the process non-partisan, which is why we did not table an amendment, but signed the motion tabled by Conservative spokespeople.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that. The signs so far are not unpromising, so I hope that we can proceed on that basis.
	As this is an Opposition motion, let me take the Opposition back to when they were in government. I do so not to make a partisan point but to remind the House how important it is to proceed on an agreed basis if we are serious about introducing the measure.
	In its fifth report of the 199394 Session, the then Treasury and Civil Service Committee produced an important report on the civil service. It recommended, among other things, that there should be a civil service Act, for much the same reasons as are being advanced here. The Government at the time were not persuaded; indeed, they gave evidence to the Committee opposing the proposition. They said that such an Act would be incredibly difficult to draft. However, in a debate in the House on 23 March 1995, following the publication of the Committee's report, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Lord Hunt, said:
	The Government would consider the introduction of a Bill only if we were satisfied that the proposed legislation would sustain the existing constitutional position, retain the flexibility of existing arrangements for regulating the terms and conditions of civil servants, and preserve the current position of civil servants under general employment law.
	He went on:
	I would also want to be satisfied that such legislation would be supported in all parts of the House.[Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 550.]
	When, just a few weeks later, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, he said, on the same issue:
	I would not want to start the process without a clear indication from all sectors of the House that in fact we would not see the Civil Service become a party political football in terms of the amendments being proposed and put forward.
	That was sensible then, and it is sensible now.
	That is how we secured the civil service code; it is how we can now secure a civil service Bill. We now have a draft Bill that was not incredibly difficult to produce, although it took some care, and commands wide support. I invite the Government and the Opposition to work together to complete this piece of unfinished constitutional business.

Andrew Tyrie: I largely, but of course not entirely, agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). We worked hard together for a while on the Public Administration Committee. If he looks back he will admit that he was not, initially, firmly in favour of a civil service Act; at least he was not as firmly committed to it as I was in those early days.

Tony Wright: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's tendency always to claim credit for any measure that anyone proposes. Can he give any evidence for his assertion?

Andrew Tyrie: As I recall, I used to ask in Committee whether we could have an inquiry into special advisers and suggest that a civil service Act was the only way to deal with the issue, and I was invariably given the brush-off. However, I do not want to create an atmosphere of tension between us because we largely agree on this matter.
	I want, none the less, to take issue with a point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech. This is important because I do not think that he has fully grasped why a civil service Act almost certainly was not required before 1997 and almost certainly is required now. That is because there has been a fundamental shift in the way that the country is being governed, and the relationship between Ministers and civil servants is different from the one that I understood to exist when I was a special adviser in the 1980s.
	That shift can be illustrated in many ways. There has been reference to the doubling of the number of special advisers since 1997. The number has more than quadrupled since my time as an adviser, having risen from 15 or 16 to nearer 80. There has also been a sharp expansion in the role of special advisers. They used to engage largely, but not entirely, in policy work, and now many of them are engaged in spin. They also perform many roles that one would have hoped were performed primarily by Ministers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, many of them are much more powerful than Ministers. They not only write speeches, but deliver them on their own account; they put articles in the newspapers; and they travel abroad and represent Britain in many meetings where, formerly, Ministers would have been doing that job.
	Most important of all is the fact that there has been a takeover of No. 10, right at the heart of Government, by special advisers, and that is backed by Orders in Council. There has been a lot of dispute today about how big that shift has been, but to realise that, we have only to cast our minds back to a few years ago, when the Prime Minister felt able to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that Alastair Campbell did a very good job of attacking the Conservative party. It would have been inconceivable for a Conservative Prime Minister to make such a remark about any of his advisers.
	Then there is Jonathan Powell. We had a little explanation of the subtleties of pronouncing his name. He is the gatekeeper to the Prime Minister, and we are told in the newspapers that, before 1997, he was running the blind trusts for the Labour party. There is some conflict between those two roles: deciding who has access to the Prime Minister and, at the same time, working out how the party can be funded.
	The whole No. 10 package amounts to a presidential style of government, something that is quite alien, not in wartime but in peacetime, to the way in which Britain is governed. The introduction of that presidential style of government has had many effects, one of which has been to strain the trust between civil servants and Ministers, which is essential for the Government to function effectively.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase will not like this, but I shall refer briefly to the evidence that I gave to the Neill Committee four or five years ago advocating a civil service Act and arguing for a stronger code of conduct for advisers. Many of my recommendations were subsequently implemented, but the Act remains outstanding. When I made those proposals, the Government's response, in the House and in briefings, was, This is all just good party political knockabout. Nothing much has changed in the way that the country is run. Everything is pretty much as it used to be. The Minister implied much the same today, but that position is very difficult to sustain after the Jo Moore episode, after what we have already heard as a result of the public hearings of the Hutton inquiry, and after the inquiry that Nigel Wicks conducted.
	If Members care to look at the Phillis report, they will see a most interesting passage. I do not know whether I need to read it; it depends on whether I am challenged. However, his comments on page 7 amount to saying that there has been a serious breach of trust at the heart of government and that the cause is the communications strategy introduced by the Labour Administration on coming to power in 1997. That is a fundamental and important charge for the Phillis inquiry to have made. It reinforces the point that something is fundamentally different in the way that we are now governed.
	The Minister's defence of what I fear will result in Government inaction was pretty thin. He fell back on the refuge that it is important to build consensus, but there is pretty much a consensus on the issue already. We do not need to go around more and more circuits seeking consensus. That very much reminds me of the line on the House of Lords that the Government have been peddling for the past few years.
	A much better argument from the MinisterI have heard it, off the record, from a number of his colleaguesmight have been, Well, the truth is we did have quite a serious problem in 1997. We didn't realise it and perhaps we were a bit too enthusiastic, but it has all settled down now. After all, Charlie Whelan went pretty quickly, Alastair Campbell has now gone and we have toned down the spinning. We've got a code for advisers and a new modus vivendi with the civil service. There is some truth in that. In a typically British way, there has been some absorption of the fundamental shifts in the way in which we are governed and in how civil servants are expected to relate to Ministers. However, that does not make the case for not having a civil service Act. Things have gone too far; we need to rebuild trust.
	One often hears the argument that it is important not to underestimate the long-term impact of a civil service Act on our political culture. The best way to illustrate that is to consider recent scandals and to ask oneself what would have been different if we had had a civil service Act. I shall cite a few examples.
	Let us take the Jo Moore episode. She bullied and browbeat civil servants over a long period. The episode was not some isolated rush of blood to her head but a sustained attack. What would have been the effect of a civil service Act? It is highly likely that some civil servants would have complained to the civil service commissioners. As a result, there would have been an investigationalthough the matter would probably not have got that far.
	The real effect of a civil service Act might have been that we still had Richard Mottraman absolutely first-class civil servant whose career was smashed to pieces as he was caught between a rock and a hard place over the Jo Moore episode. Perhaps Richard Mottram could have gone to the Cabinet Secretary anyway. He did not, and the reason why he did not was explained in another context by Kevin Tebbit: for a permanent secretary to do so is the nuclear option; it is just too big a step. I see the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) nodding in agreement. The introduction of some fallback position that civil service commissioners might provide would add to the protection that civil servants could enjoy. The conclusion I draw is that events would have been quite different if we had had a civil service Act.
	Let us take the Hutton inquirywe do not yet have the reportand consider it on the basis of evidence already in the public domain. Virtually all the evidence given to Hutton is in the public domain; virtually nothing was in camera, so we can form our own judgments on that basis. If we had had a civil service Act, how would the civil service have reacted to demands from Alastair Campbell for the production of material for his dossiers? In particular, what would the civil service have said about the role that it played in putting together the second February dossier? As the House will recall, that was the one that led civil servants to complain that it was being asked to become a propaganda arm of Government. As we know from evidence given to Hutton, the second dossier was not cleared by the intelligence community, and it was not checked by anybody in a position to do that job. Alastair Campbell has since apologised to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the way in which it was produced.

Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to the excellent argument deployed by my hon. Friend. I support everything that he has said, as I did the overwhelming majority of the comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will restore the integrity of the civil service only if we restore the integrity of the House of Commons, which should have more authority and more time to decide what it wants to do rather than what the Government want to do?

Andrew Tyrie: I absolutely agree. I have in front of me some interesting notes that were produced for the Liaison Committee which relate to that issue. If I have time, I might get on to that, but I do not want to detain the House now.
	Would the history of Hutton have been exactly the same had there been a civil service Act? My best guess is that those who were forced to assist Alastair Campbell in the production of the second dossier would have complained. They would have said, Thank you very much, we don't want to get engaged in this, and there would never have been that second dossiercertainly not in the form that it was produced. A by-product of that might have been that Alastair Campbell, who we are told complains bitterly that the children go off to school and he has nothing to do but wait for a phone to ring, would still be in post. I shall let pass whether we would have been better or worse off as a result.
	What about the Kelly affair? Would that have been exactly the same had we had a civil service Act? The key question here is what Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary, would have done. Would he have accepted that the outing in the press of one of his staff could have been organised by a committee in No. 10, chaired by the Prime Minister? I do not think that he would have done so. He would have worried that civil service commissioners might have investigated the lack of care for a member of staff. Kevin Tebbit has a duty of care to ensure that staff are treated properly. Clearly, he was not looking after them; he was delegating the responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that he would have complained. What is more, I am absolutely sure that the Prime Minister and Alastair Campbell would have trodden much more cautiously in the Kelly affair had there been a civil service Act.
	I conclude from those episodes that history would have been quite different, and that a civil service Act would have already performed a sensible function. It would have had a non-negligible effect. That is why I said that it would in the long run have a profound effect on our culture.
	I return to a point related to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton): what about the relationship between the civil service and Parliament? Over the past few years, there have been a good number of cases of Select Committees trying to call civil servants before them but finding that their way to such cross-examination was blocked. Some of Lord Hutton's work could have been performed more appropriately by a Select Committee. Of course, Lord Hutton had the power to call anybody, whereas Select Committees have found themselves constantly obstructed. Indeed, there had to be lengthy negotiations in order to obtain even a limited hearing with David Kelly.

Paul Tyler: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument and support him in it, but does he agree that it was not only the calling of witnesses, in which the Select Committee did have a reasonable success rate, but getting information in the form of e-mails and other written material out of Whitehall that was the real success of the Hutton exercise?

Andrew Tyrie: Rather than detain the House, I shall simply commend to the hon. Gentleman the Liaison Committee document, Scrutiny of Government: Select Committees after Hutton. Note by the Clerks. It is well worth taking a look at. I hope that I have not inadvertently obtained something that is not yet in the public domainI cannot remember quite how it came my way. The document is replete with interesting points, including one that has a direct bearing on the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman.
	It is fair to say that if we had a civil service Act, Members of Parliament would feel that the civil service was ultimately accountable to them, and I think that in the long run the relationship between this place and the civil service would change fundamentally. Ultimately, therefore, the question is far deeper than merely whether the rather quaintly titled Osmotherly rules would be swept aside; it ranges into what we as a Parliament should do. I have never believed that Parliament should be able ultimately to block what the Government want. But I have always believed that Parliament's job is to force the Government to explain their actions. I have always believed that the Select Committee process is crucial. Our Parliament is, in that respect, much weaker than most other democratic assemblies in the world.
	We have had a first-rate civil service, loyal and dedicated, for a long time. We still have one. We have a long tradition of political independence, which we should not lightly imperil. If a Government want to introduce another form of relationship with the civil service, they should be permitted to do so. If they want a presidential-style of government, a cabinet system, or whatever, they should be allowed to have it. The Government have been elected and they should be allowed to get on with the job, and if we do not like what they do, we can kick them out at the end of their term. However, here we have a Government who have changed the style of government and that relationship, but who are in denial about the change. While they are in denial, it is essential that we press the case for a civil service Act to protect that independence. We must oppose the backdoor efforts of the past seven years to create a presidential style of government. That is why the whole House should now support the introduction of a civil service Act.

Andrew Dismore: Bearing in mind my earlier intervention, I rise with a degree of reticence to speak about part 2 of the draft Bill. However, as no one else has done so, it is important to say something about it. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that it was the least important part of the draft Bill, but later stated that the civil service should be founded on selection on merit. If part 2 is of no importance, first, why have its provisions been incorporated into the Bill that was presented to Parliament a couple of weeks ago? Secondly, why and how should we achieve selection on merit when there are so many anomalies in the nationality rules, which prevent so many from joining the civil service?
	The Bill advocated by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is based on the Select Committee's draft Bill, part 2 of which is based on the ten-minute Bill that I introduced last year and reintroduced yesterday, with the leave of the House. As I mentioned earlier, 21 Conservative Members voted against my Bill yesterday at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They included, rather bizarrely, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who voted for the Select Committee report, voted against the provisions of part 2 yesterday, and presumably will vote in favour of the Opposition motion today. It remains to be seen how he will vote when the issue next arises, on 30 January. Perhaps he will switch sides yet again, rivalling Winston Churchill's record for the number of times he changed sides on one issue. Perhaps the real question is whether the 21 Members in question will have the courage of their convictions and vote against the Tory Whip this afternoon, or whether, if they vote with their Whip this afternoon, they will change sides and support my Bill on 30 January.
	In his reply to my intervention, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that if I was of that mind, I should vote with the Opposition today. The obvious answer to that is that I do not need to. Because an actual Bill, not a draftmy ten-minute Billis already before the House, I can happily vote against the Tories' motion today, and vote for the proposal that will come before the House on Friday 30 January.

Oliver Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to pledge that on Friday 30 January he will not make a great long speech on one of the two Bills that are ahead of the Civil Service Bill in the business for that day? He has a bit of form in that respect.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps I can make a pact with the hon. Gentleman. If he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to adopt a Trappist vow in relation to my Bill, I shall consider his request in relation to the other Bills listed in that Friday's business. I am not minded to talk out those two Bills, but I make no promise in respect of future Bills. In fact, bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday, perhaps I should start speaking against ten-minute Bills of no merit proposed by Opposition Members, so that we do not have to waste time on Fridays debating them. Rather than trying to talk them out on a Friday, I could simply go for the kill right at the beginning of the process when a ten-minute Bill is proposed on the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has adopted that tactic, perhaps I should do the same.

Stephen Pound: It would be more humane.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps it would, and perhaps it would also allow time on Fridays for consideration of more meritorious Bills.
	Let me take this opportunity to answer some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in yesterday's debate. He betrayed his antipathy towards any form of multiculturalism, even though my Bill is not about multiculturalism, or immigration, or anything else of that nature. It is simply about correcting anomalies, which I outlined yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place today, which is a pityno doubt as an assiduous reader of Hansard he will read my remarks tomorrowbut yesterday he said that he welcomed people coming from overseas if they have skills and a contribution to make. Despite saying that, he seemed prepared to deny the public services the right to employ such people, in effect denying the British public the services of people who have skills and a contribution to make. It seems to me that if people who have something to offer come here from overseas, we should not put any barriers in the way of their making a contribution to our society in every way they can, which may well involve working in the civil service.
	I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of skilled migrant workers who are here for a short period, or for several years, and who would like both to gain experience of the UK's systems despite all the criticism that we have heard today, our civil service is among the best in the worldand to use the lessons thus learned to help to improve their own country's civil service on their return home. I mentioned yesterday the communities in my constituency of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan who have been granted refugee status, many of whom are highly skilled professionals. They have not taken British nationality because they want to be able to return to their own country when it is safe for them to do so: they are proud of their heritage and see their ultimate role as one of helping to rebuild their country. What could be less helpful to them than to deny them the right to work in our civil service, because by doing so, they could gain experience and knowledge of how civil servants should operate, so that when they return to their own country, they could help the reconstruction efforts?

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me on a serious point. Is it not important for him to mention that his proposals would still allow us to specify certain positions that are not open to foreign nationals, if that could be justified?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Under existing arrangements, there are limited procedures to enable foreign nationals to be recruited to the civil service. If I recall correctly, just over 40 certificates have been issued. However, that does not answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The civil service has to show either that no British national has the relevant skills or that the foreign national has exceptional skills to justify the issue of such a certificate. In fact, three quarters of those certificates are issued by the Ministry of Defence, not the civil service.
	That brings me to the question of recruitment to the civil service. Under existing rules, 9 per cent. of Londoners350,000 peopleare excluded entirely from the civil service. In the United Kingdom as whole, 850,000 people are excluded. Nevertheless, the state still has to provide services to those people. The civil service should reflect the society that it serves. The very fact that it cannot recruit those people results in greater costs to the civil service. What about language skills? In my constituency, nearly 200 different languages are spoken. If civil servants were recruited from those backgrounds they would be able to communicate with people in my constituency in their own language, thus making savings on expensive language services. Such people are also aware of those communities' cultural ties and needs, and can respond more effectively when dealing with individuals from such backgrounds.
	If the boot is on the other foot and people have worked as civil servants in their own country, they may be able to use their experience to make a contribution to the development of our own civil service. That is important in relation to state security. For example, we may want to recruit people from overseas to Customs and Excise but we cannot do so. How can we tackle drug or people smuggling effectively if we cannot recruit people from the nations where those offences originate to infiltrate gangs, expose them and help to arrest the individuals responsible for serious crimes? We cannot combat drug or people smuggling effectively because we cannot recruit the people whom we need to Customs and Excise so that they can tackle those activities.
	Similarly, if we genuinely want to promote trade, why cannot we recruit people to the Department of Trade and Industry from an overseas background? Again, they have a great deal to offer the civil service and could help to develop our sales pitch to overseas nations. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had a fetish about the question of nationality, and talked about the transition from work permit status to indefinite leave to remain.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat too much of yesterday's debate, and will look at the motion under discussion.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly accept the point that you are making, Madam Deputy Speaker, but part 2 of the Bill proposed by the Opposition deals entirely with those issues. I am trying to respond to some of the points that were made yesterday but which I did not deal with in the speech that I made then.
	If someone is given British nationality, that is no guarantee of their commitment to this country and our security. That commitment can best be shown by a willingness to work in our public services. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was concerned about the natural suspicion of foreign nationals that, he felt, was rampant throughout the country.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a Member who participated in the debate yesterday, but has not participated in the debate today.

Andrew Dismore: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could put it this way. It has been suggested that there is a suspicion of foreign nationals throughout the country. I challenge that, but even if it were the case, it is a reflection of the un-national, irrational xenophobia often displayed by Opposition Members. Some of the people about whom we are concerned, such as Mr. Abu Hamza, are British nationals and could join the civil service. By the same token, the widow of a British victim of 11 September could not, because she is an American national.
	There is discrimination against Commonwealth and Irish citizens under existing arrangements, as they are excluded from applying for 25 per cent. of civil service posts. In fact, only 10 per cent. of posts need to be restricted on grounds of nationality for security reasons, but the definition of public service effectively excludes such people from 25 per cent. of those posts. There are severe illogicalities and anomalies in the system. For example, the wife of a British citizen who is a Chinese, Russian or Japanese national is forbidden from joining the civil service, but the Chinese, Russian or Japanese wife of a French citizen living in the United Kingdom is permitted to join the civil service. Surely, it is not right that the spouse of a foreigner can join the civil service but the spouse of a Briton cannot. As an illustration, I recently received an e-mail from Mr. Martin

Stephen Pound: Not Tony.

Andrew Dismore: No, not Tony Martin.
	Mr. Martin says:
	My interest involves my wife Nurcan Martin. She is Turkish, with a 2.1 honours degree in the administrative activities of government, but being married to a UK national may not work for the civil service. As I understand it, if her husband were from any of the other EEC countries she would be eligible for employment in the UK civil service. I consider this totally unacceptable.
	Mr. Martin goes on to say:
	I dread to think of the number of talented, experienced, educated and highly qualified members of the UK population whose skills have been denied to the offices of government.
	He later told me on the telephone that his wife had applied for a job with the Maritime and Coastguard Agencywe should encourage people from overseas to apply for such jobs because they can communicate effectively with individuals in other countries operating ships and aircraftbut was excluded from it on nationality grounds. That is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
	I have tried to show that existing rules cause great distress, not just to people from overseas who would like to work for our civil service but to UK citizens who are their spouses. More importantly, they undermine the ethos of our civil service, which should, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said, be open to appointment on merit with the exception of the 10 per cent. of jobs that have to be reserved to UK nationals for operational reasons. At the same time, those rules do not reflect the society that we serve. Part 2 of the Opposition's Bill is important, so I hope that they will support my ten-minute Bill when it receives its Second Reading. [Interruption.]

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the conversation that I was just having with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I also apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for not being present for all of his speech. He had the courtesy to write to me to say that he was going to mention me in his speech. Unfortunately, however, I had to attend a sitting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, as a report is being signed off at the moment.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who steered his Committee through an interesting, frustrating and at times downright difficult process. Having taken evidence from witnesses and undertaken many other tasks, we succeeded in publishing a draft Bill. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) was the single dissenting voice, but his minority report made interesting reading in its own right, because he raised many of the things that the Government will have to face when they introduce their Bill in this Session.
	When I first came to the House, I did not have a view on whether or not there should be a civil service Bill. The Minister may not like this, but I changed my mind after a Select Committee visit to Bristol. We took evidence from hospital staff, teachers and many others in preparation for a report on the ethos of the civil service. We discovered an endemic culture of bullying and targets, and found that an all-pervading top-down ethos was being pumped into the people who were least able to defend themselves. I changed my mind about the need for legislation after meeting people at a certain level who found it almost impossible to get their voice heard. They did not believe that they could go to the topthey did not think that they would be listened to by the Minister or other Government members and they did not believe that the civil service was in a position to do something about their problems. That may not be what they were trying to convey, but I got the intense impression that it is what they were thinking.
	As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, it is vital that the process by which the Bill is brought before the House and becomes law is bipartisan. When I first heard about the debate, I was fairly vociferous in expressing my views to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who said that it would take place in the spirit of teasing out of the Government when the draft Bill was to be produced. The Government have now committed themselves to that, for which I must thank them.
	What is the definition of a civil servant? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, a civil servant should be a person who is paid for by the Crownin other words, by the Government. I agree. Our report states:
	The definition of a civil servant, to whom the Act applies, is of fundamental importance in determining the scope and relevance of a Civil Service Act.
	It seems incredible to me that in this day and age we cannot arrive at a definitionit is not beyond the wit of man to do that. One can say that it should cover level 1, 2, 3 or 4 civil servants, or the whole lot. I believe that all civil servants need the right to protection from the Government or anyone else, and that only this place can give it. To me, the fundamental definition of a civil servant is someone who is paid out of the public purse.
	I want, if I may, to go slightly further. When we took witness statements, it became obvious that almost everybody saw the need for legislation of some kind. That is endemic in the Jo MooreSixsmith affair that started all this. When I came to this place, I had no experience of special advisersI had not been one, I had never met one, and I did not know what they did. All I knew was that Tony Benn had two of them, because he said so in his diaries some years ago. According to those diaries, they did exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe saidthat is, they advised the Minister, and nothing more. They did not, for example, give executive orders. An enormous shift has taken place since then.
	The Committee referred to the Library document, Whither the Civil Service?, as part of our 2002 investigation into the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions affair. It states:
	The employment of politically-appointed special advisers has always contained the potential to cause problems. Where special advisers can appeal above the heads of the permanent secretary of the Secretary of State, they are enjoying privileges that are not available to other civil servants. Rightly or wrongly,
	this
	can be a damaging perception.
	I entirely agree with that. We discussed the Sixsmith-Jo Moore affair at enormous length, but we could not call them when they were employed by the Government. We could have done so afterwards, but things had moved on.
	The role of special advisers has to be reviewed. As they are political, they must come under the control of this place. A special adviser is there to advise, not to administerif that is required, another Minister should be appointed. The DTLR reportI would commend it to the Ministerexamines where the Government and the civil service went wrong. Perhaps it would have made a difference if the permanent secretary had stood up and been a bit more vociferous, or if the Secretary of State had been a little more in tune with what was going on, or if we had pushed the matter a bit further in place. But without legislation, we could not find out what was going on until it was too late. I do not wish harm to any special adviser, but to say that one is going to bury bad news on the day of a catastrophe is not the way to do business in anybody's eyes, as I am sure the Minister would agree.
	I remember Ministersnot this Ministersaying to the Committee, This was in our manifesto in 1997 and has been in it beforeI'm sorry it has taken so long. I would have thought the Government's own civil service would say that legislation is vital. Certainly, when the noble Lords Wilson, Butler and Armstrong came before the Committee there was no doubt that they thought that there had to be some form of protection. They were incredibly capable menthe most impressive witnesses we have had, with the possible exception of Sir Andrew Turnbullas heads of the civil service. I did not agree with everything that they said, but I fundamentally accepted that they knew better than we did, given their longevity of service. It was interesting to talk to Lord Wilson in a private capacity when I happened to bump into him. He was very keen to get the Bill launched, either in the Lords or here. He felt that unless something happened soon, the frustration of many people, including civil servants, would boil over. That is why today's announcement by the Government is so vital.
	The witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee were of incredibly high quality. When the Government consult on the Bill, I urge them to talk, in an open and frank manner, to those people, because weanother colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), has just come ingained a phenomenal depth of understanding in a very short time. I do not believe that hon. Members will seriously contest the Bill, although it will be tinkered with through amendments and suggestions, but that does not mean that we should not consult on it beforehand. I suspect that the Minister may find that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his Committee may look at the matter againwe may even move our own amendments.
	I wonder how such a Bill will be affected by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which comes into force in 2005. Will it mean that Select Committees are able to call for people whom we cannot call at the moment?
	Having started from a point where I did not see the need for a Bill, I am now firmly wedded to it. We need it as a matter of urgent priority. Having listened to hon. Members, it is clear to me that it has the backing of the House. If the Minister wants to try to avoid some of the more ridiculous things that have happened in the past, and will happen in futurean article by Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times gave a clear account of thatone way of doing that is through openness and an Act that will give civil servants the protection that they require from this place, so that they at least know to whom they can turn when all else fails.

Brian White: One of my reasons for producing a minority report has been confirmed by the tenor of the debate. I did not believe that it was possible to achieve consensus on such an important subject in the current climate, and the debate has confirmed my worst fears. Four years ago, I suspect that we could have reached agreementperhaps even minebut I am not sure that we can do so in a post-Hutton climate. I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would not take an intervention from me. I would have asked him to define civil servant, which is the question that I asked my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) has just admitted that the Committee could not agree a consistent and acceptable definition of civil servant for the Bill and that we fell back on what everybody accepts was a fudge by referring the matter to the Royal Commission.
	A civil service Bill is often proposed to protect the impartiality of the civil service. We have heard comments about special advisers and references have been made to the Phillis report, which followed the Public Administration Committee's report on the Jo MooreMartin Sixsmith affair. It would be a mistake to use the Phillis report to justify the civil service Bill. Statute will be important at some point, but we must achieve consensus first. The present draft Bill does not take into account some of the problems with the detail.
	The other issue, which has been articulated by some Conservative Members, is the increased politicisation of the civil service. In taking evidence for the draft Bill and for other reports, the Public Administration Committee and the Wicks committee both concluded that special advisers are good and that they prevent the politicisation of the civil service.
	I was amused that the key point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was abolition of the Order in Council, because the Bill retains the Order in Council for two or three people.

Oliver Heald: We would have liked to go much further on some of the issues, but we accept that the Committee produced its draft Bill as a basis on which to form a consensus on what we can do now. We are supporting the Bill in the hope that we can garner support from both sides of the House in order to put legislation that does good things on the statute book.

Brian White: And I thought the Opposition were supporting the Bill to try to embarrass the Governmenthow silly of me.
	When we took evidence, the civil service unions discussed applying the Bill not only to a few senior civil servants, but to the whole civil service. One of the draft Bill's failings is that it concentrates on top civil servants. The civil service has changed over the past 20 years, with privatisation and outsourcing. Two people can do exactly the same jobfor example, one of them works in the Inland Revenue and the other works for EDSbut one of them is a civil servant and the other is not.
	Last Thursday, a case was referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The person referred to was a board member of a non-departmental public body. In the short debate, she was referred to as a civil servant. People who work for the board are civil servants, but what about non-executive board members? Until one month ago, 500 people who worked happily in the Department of Trade and Industry were called civil servants. Today, they do exactly the same jobs but are no longer civil servants because they work for Ofcom. One minute people are civil servants and the next minute they are not, and it may be that the reverse can happen.
	In the Bill, the responsibilities and interests of an immigration official are regarded as somehow exactly the same as those of a permanent secretary. Again, those issues have not been thought through. The draft Bill assumes that all civil servants have somehow got common interests. To widen the point, plenty of other public service employees, whether they work in the NHS or in other non-departmental or next step agencies, are not classified as civil servants. If we cannot reach a definition of civil servant or of core values, it will be a real problem. If we were to widen the scope to public sector workersthere is a strong case for doing somy argument would not hold up.
	I shall take the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) at face value and accept that the Conservatives are pushing for legislation.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one thing that has been achieved today is that the Government have now agreed to introduce a Bill in this Session of Parliament. That is a major step forward.

Brian White: The Government's position has always been that they would introduce their Bill after the Committee had produced its draft Bill. One of the advantages of the Committee's work is that it has brought forward the Government's response.
	The principal claim madewe heard it again today from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffewas that a new Act would somehow respect the impartiality of the civil service, but nobody ever defines impartiality. We also talk about independence. I do not know anybody who is independent, but I know people who have a point of view different from mine. What is impartiality? I remember John Hoskyns complaining in the early 1980s that it appeared that civil servants existed to maintain the balance between extreme policies from left and right, and that officials were given the right to define and defend what they saw as the centre ground. He did not think that that was right then, and I do not think it is right now.
	Civil servants are not meant to be impartial: they are meant to be partial and serve the Government of the day, irrespective of which party formed the Government and their own political views. It is nonsense to have a debate about impartiality instead of a mature debate about the role of civil servants.

Tony Wright: Perhaps it would assist my hon. Friend if I suggested that civil servants are required to be impartial in their partiality.

Brian White: A civil servant could not have put it better. My hon. Friend earlier referred to the permanent Government and the elected Government, and that is a real issue. Last year I introduced a private Member's Bill on sustainable energy. It made progress through the House, with some difficulty, and the support of the relevant Minister was critical. Halfway through its progress, there was a reshuffle. The advice of the civil servants was not that the negotiations should continue from the point where the previous Minister left and the new one came in, but that they should go right back to the original advice that the civil servants gave to the Minister at the beginning of the processand that was to oppose the Bill. Luckily the new Minister understood his brief and my Bill became an Act, but a civil service Bill would entrench the differences between the elected Government and the permanent Government. Such issues can and must be resolved before we legislate.
	The Phillis review made recommendations on ministerial input into the appointment of civil servants. The accusation is that Ministers threaten the impartiality of the civil service by the way in which they appoint their staff. The Phillis review recommended the retention of the status quo. That means that for an external appointment a panel recommends a single candidate to the Minister, who has a veto but no choice, and for an internal appointment Ministers are given a choice between two or three candidates. Is it really suggested that when faced with a choice of candidates, a Minister would suddenly lose all sense, disregard considerations of efficiency and appoint someone who was unfit for the position? Someone earlier mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and his example destroys that whole argument. It is important to achieve a balance on this issue, and some of the claims that are made do not hold water when one looks at the facts.
	The civil service has changed over the years. We now have devolved Assemblies and much more interaction internationally, because of globalisation. In addition to those complexities, jobs are moved in and out of the civil service, as I have already mentioned, and the advice given to many civil servants is to gain more experience in the private sector. The draft Bill fundamentally tackles none of those issues. Any measure that the Government present on the subject needs to deal with them.
	Let me deal with the commissioners. The Bill that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the Public Administration Committee support aims to put civil service commissioners' powers on a statutory footing. I am worried about the way in which the powers are defined. In her evidence to the Public Administration Committee, Baroness Pashar, the First Civil Service Commissioner, declared that the
	Act should set out the core values of the Civil Service and the role of the Civil Service Commision to act as custodian of those core values.
	I have no problem with that, but she also argued that legislation
	should not necessarily prescribe how the Commission should undertake its functions.
	The commissioners were worried that the core values of the service were vulnerable to change
	at the whim of any Government without prior Parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
	However, the First Civil Service Commissioner believed that there should be no parliamentary debate until she took action. Her view was that parliamentary debate and inquiry should take place after the review of the civil service commissioners' annual report. Baroness Pashar said that
	how we do it is something that is left to the Commissioners, and we can then be questioned about it which gives the flexibility.
	We cannot have it both ways. Do we genuinely want to shift scrutiny from Parliament to a non- elected commission, without prior parliamentary consideration?
	My fundamental objection was to the commissioners' statement that they would happily intervene to sort out a minor personality clash in a ministerial office when in no circumstances would they get involved when the clerical staff in the Department for Work and Pensions were routinely sacked after 51 weeks to get round employment law. The commissioners referred only to people at the top end and did not care about the majority of civil servants and public sector workers. That is a fundamental flaw in the way in which the commission acts. If we intend to sort out the whole civil service, I hope that Government will consider the commissioners' powers.
	Let me consider the codes of conduct. Existing codes and their merits have not been properly analysed for effectiveness or recognition by civil servants. The civil service commissioners' annual report and the ninth report of the Wicks committee acknowledge that awareness of the civil service code is low and that much needs to be done to promote it as a living document. If the problem is recognition, it will remain whether the code stays as it is or becomes a statutory beast.
	Much has been said about special advisers so I shall not speak about them in detail. Every committee that has examined the matter recommended that special advisers should remain and emphasised the need for their existence to advise Ministers. However, there is a danger in having a statutory code for special advisers because it will give them rights in employment law. They currently do not have them because they are mere appendages to their Ministers. If people believe that there is a problem with special advisers, giving them more rights is not the best way in which to progress.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) covered part 2 of the Bill in his excellent speech. Other hon. Members have drawn attention to the Phillis review on recruitment and training. Phillis made several findings, especially that it is
	vital that the permanent secretary encourages movement between the public and private sectors to facilitate wider skill development.
	Too often, the fear of politicisation, not genuine politicisation, causes the problem. I therefore hope that the Government will take on board the sensible Phillis recommendations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, who chairs the Public Administration Committee, referred to the Committee's visit to Canada where substantial reforms are taking place. They are far more relevant than the narrow, limited Bill that we are considering. They are geared to giving more powers to the Canadian House of Commons and ensuring that Parliament has effective control over the civil service and Ministers. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will probably not wish to know that Canada has a new system for classifying a three-line Whip. It is used merely for votes of confidence and a limited number of matters that are fundamentally important to the Government.
	The way in which civil servants relate to Parliament in Canada is being reformed. Canada is a Westminster-style Parliament, from which we can learn several lessons. The key lessons are transparency and operating much more openly in a way that delivers the public services that people want.
	If we are serious about improving the civil service, we should follow the route that I outlined. To do that, we need a mature debate. That brings me back to my reasons for believing that there is a problem. I do not believe that the current media climate allows for a serious and mature debate about the subject. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that I am right. The Bill does not take account of the current political climate. Any new measure that is introduced will either be so anodyne that it is worthless or used simply for political bunfighting.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have little time, so I shall be brief. I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debateI was detained elsewhere. However, I heard much of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I was here in time for the splendid speech, with which I concurred entirely, of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee.
	I strongly support the Committee's conclusions and its recommendations for a civil service Bill. I am a fairly new member and when I first joined, I did not realise that it was a serious issue. As the debates went on and we interviewed more and more people, it become obvious that it was important for our constitution. I have been a student of constitutional matters and politics all my lifeindeed, I have also been a teacher of that subjectand I believe that a civil service Bill is fundamental to the future of our democracy.
	The rot set in when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister and wanted people to be one of us. Shewittingly or unwittinglypoliticised our constitution. When she was opposed to matters, she made fundamental reforms, weakening the trade unions, local government and so on because she wanted her way. We have a strong, centralised and secretive system of government and it is important to have strong countervailing forces. I mean that in the sense not of being oppositionist but of being a sounding board and providing a different view from time to time. The independent, professional civil service is important to our constitution in that respect.
	We interviewed many people, including Sir Andrew Turnbull and Sir Nigel Wicks. I agreed entirely with Sir Nigel Wicks but was uncomfortable with some of Sir Andrew Turnbull's comments. The latter appeared to be the Government's representative in the civil service rather than the civil servants' representative to the Government. It is important to retain the independence of the civil service.
	When I speak to my political colleagues, even at Back-Bench level, I like people to tell me the truth and say what is right and what is wrong. I do not want people who just do what I say because they are employed by me. I have 2.2 staff, who are my personal political advisers, and they tell me what they believe. I ask them to check everything I write or say to find out whether I am talking nonsense. It is important that the civil service has a similar role.
	I asked Sir Nigel whether it was right for civil servants sometimes to tell a Minister, I am sorry, but you have that wrong. If the top layer of the civil service becomes politicised to the extent that the job of those civil servants no longer serves as a force to question Ministers, but to carry out those Ministers' will and, indeed, that of Downing street, and if those Ministers are insulated from any countervailing views, then government becomes very unhealthy. In the end, Governments can make mistakes and there is a danger of ending up with not only undemocratic, but bad government.
	The pluralist nature of British society is of fundamental importance. I spent much of my life working in the trade union movement, and I saw it greatly weakened during my time. That was a retrograde step, because trade unions not only fulfil a democratic role in representing millions of ordinary workers and offering a legitimate collective view, but are necessary for our constitution and help to ensure that questioning and countervailing argument is brought forward from time to time. The same is true of local government, which I believe to be an essential part of our constitution. If we weaken it and make it the lickspittle and lackey of central Government, it will not be healthy for our democracy.
	Independent and strong political parties that finance themselves are also important. I am unhappy with the idea of the state financing them because he who pays the piper calls the tune. I want my party to be told what to do not just by the Government, but by the membership, collectively and individually. That should apply to other parties, too. When we have elections, we hear alternative views from which people can choose. If parties are state financed, one could see them gradually coalescing into the centre, and we could lose the political choice that is so vital for our democracy.
	As I said, our country has a strong central Government and a relatively weaktoo weak, I believeParliament. I am a member of several Scandinavian all-party groups and the Scandinavians often tell us that our constitution is different from theirs: they have a strong Parliament and a weak Government; we have a strong Government and weak Parliament. I believe that our Parliament should be stronger in relation to the Executive, irrespective of what party controls the Government. It would be healthier to have a stronger Parliament than we currently have and I hope that the civil service Bill will act as another essential component of our pluralistic democracy. Civil servants should have the independence and opportunity to tell Ministers that certain policies are right or wrong.
	I end with a few brief comments on political advisers. Some 25 years ago I was friendly with the private office of Tony Benn. I knew the political advisers well; one of them was his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my lifelong and good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). Francis Cripps and Frances Morrell were two other advisers. The system worked well because they acted as personal advisers to Tony Benn when he was Secretary of State for Energy. They did not act as an insulating layer between the civil servant and the Secretary of State: they spoke in his left ear and the civil servants spoke in his right one. They had different views, which was healthy. In the end the civil servants would say that they disagreed with the political advisers, but Tony Benn did not have political advisers speaking in both ears. I am sure that Tony Benn, a politician with whom I find much agreement, would say that it is healthy to have a strong independent civil service, even if it is made up of the awkward squad of Sir Humphreys. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
	I look forward to the Government introducing strong legislation, which will establish the civil service as a strong independent professional force. It should continue in the traditions of Northcote-Trevelyan, and make our democracy and our Government much healthier for the long-term future.

Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate. A range of views has been expressed, but the overwhelming sense of the debate has been support for the work of the Public Administration Committee and the Bill that it has produced.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Select Committee, started by asking for a discussion of the issues on as much of a non-party political basis as possible. Both sides of the House would agree that that is what we have had. The Opposition motion offers none of the abuse and criticism of the Government that such motions often contain. It merely calls on the Government to introduce a Civil Service Bill. I even remained hopeful after reading the Government amendment, which said that they would introduce a draft Bill and which, in turn, contains very little abuse.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)[Hon. Members: Where is he?] he will be backopened the debate in his inimitable style. What a treat it was to see him back on the Front Bench. [Hon. Members: Not for long.] He was described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) as a giant. I entirely agree, but it was a bit discourteous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the rest of us were pygmies. The more substantial Front-Bench Members would not go along with that.
	The speech by the Minister for the Cabinet Office was good in parts, and he finally admitted that the draft Bill would be published in this Session rather than in this Parliament, but there was something of the feel of the firm slap of consultation about it. I remembered that he was the Minister who introduced the notion of the big conversation: my hope was that the conversation would not be very long.
	The Minister said that the Government have been in possession of the draft Bill for only 16 days, but that was slightly disingenuous. The Government have promised to maintain the civil service's political impartiality, and to introduce reform to ensure it, since the Labour party agreement with the Liberal Democrat party in 1996. The Labour manifestos of 1997 and 2001 contained that pledge, which was also in the document Ambitions for Britain?, on which all present Labour Members were elected.

Douglas Alexander: indicated dissent.

Oliver Heald: If the Minister wants to intervene, I should be only happy to allow him to. As long ago as 2 May 2002, the Deputy Prime Minister made clear his support for a civil service Bill. He said:
	We have made it absolutely clear that the Government's position is that we will produce a civil service Bill, which will become a civil service Act. We are in agreement with the then conclusions of the Public Administration Committee on these matters . . . I think that we are the first Government to make it clear that there should be a civil service Act. We will carry out that promise . . . We will consult before the Bill is introduced. That is our intention; let us make no mistake. The Government are committed to bringing in a new civil service Actwith all in agreement on the matter, we hope.[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 280.]
	Almost everyone here agrees that there should be new civil service legislation, but what have the Government been doing for the past two years? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government have had the draft proposals for only 16 days. Surely he and his officials should have been working on their proposals for a draft Bill. We are not talking about a huge number of clauses. The draft Bill produced by the Public Administration Committee is not long. At the very least, the Minister should be able to give us a firm timetable for the introduction of a Bill by the Government, which can be enshrined in law in this Session.

Tony Wright: For the sake of clarity, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last sentence of the Committee's report asked the Government to produce their draft Bill in this Session of Parliament. The Government have now given that commitment, so I do not understand why, if we are proceeding on the basis of good faith, the hon. Gentleman would want to divide the House on this matter.

Oliver Heald: We can remember that the Government have given similar pledges for seven years. That is a very long time for a promise to remain unfulfilled, even for this Government. The Opposition want the Government to produce, in this Session, not just a draft Bill, but the final version of a Bill. We want to make progress and to bring in a new law. That is probably one of the few differences between us and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase.
	Why is a new law necessary? The Committee of which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase is Chairman said that it was necessary in order to enshrine the position of civil servants in law. The hon. Gentleman has also said:
	There are key relationships at the centre of Government between Ministers, civil servants and now special advisers and we think it is important to get those boundary lines properly identified and get the codes that govern them written down in statute and approved by Parliament.
	That is exactly what the draft Bill would do. The proposals would enshrine in statute the concept of the civil service and its commission, the need for the codes and a civil servant's right to make a complaint to the commission on appeal.

Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that he can answer when he intervenes. He said that he believed that other matters needed attention and that slight changes were needed here and there in the draft Bill, but does he agree that we could have a Second Reading debate on that draft? We could agree its principle, and sort those other matters out in Standing Committee.

Brian White: I should be very happy to see a draft Bill go through Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that a civil servant could appeal to a commissioner, but exactly who could do so?

Oliver Heald: I shall not go into huge detail, but the hon. Gentleman will see that the Bill makes that provision and defines those who could make such an application. Clause 1 defines the civil service, clause 2 defines the civil service commission and clause 6 contains the right to appeal. He can see all that fully set out in the Bill.
	To continue with the theme of why the Bill is needed, it is neededas the hon. Member for Cannock Chase rightly saidbecause of the requirement to set the boundaries correctly, and also because of the developing background in recent years during which we have seen the inexorable rise of the cadre of special advisers. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) referred to the big increase in their numbers, pointing out that when he was a special adviser there were 15 but there are now more than 80. We should not ignore the fact that spending on special advisers has increased threefold, or how special advisers are now being used, for example, to brief the press, and leading special advisers or political appointees have been put in control of the Government information service.

Brian White: The Public Administration Committee looked at special advisers in one of its previous reports, and an interesting finding was the massive increase in Short money going to Opposition parties. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the increase in the number of special advisers to his party has been during the period of this Government?

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Short money, but I have never heard anyone in the Labour party say that they would like it to be reduced, because they realise that they will need it when they are in opposition in 18 months' time.
	Some serious allegations have been made, including in the evidence of the First Division Association to the Public Administration Committee on the Jo Moore affair. The FDA's general secretary, Jonathan Baume, described her behaviour as a
	classic textbook case of bullying,
	and went on to say:
	She had no grasp of political impartiality in the Civil Service, or if she had she ignored it.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) was right to say that a civil servant has to be partial in that he has to support the Government in its endeavours. However, it is very helpful, and a great strength of our civil servicethe hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made this pointthat it is independent and will tell Ministers what is wrong with their proposals and why, and who disagrees with them and why. We want to keep a civil service that has that element of independence and impartiality. Our country is lucky to have such a civil service, and it would be very easy for us to lose it.
	The proposed Bill would clarify the boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, which we need for the future. We could address that need just by examining recent events that have struck a chord with the media, but it is also worth looking at the other issues developing in the background. Jonathan Baume said in his evidence to the Committee:
	The Civil Service is going through probably greater change now than at any time in its history in terms of the time frame . . . you see both structures changing and also the way that civil servants develop their careers.
	He said that great movement is
	being encouraged in and out of post,
	pointing out that current Cabinet Office figures show that 17 per cent. of senior civil service posts are held by people who have come from outside the civil service, but that that figure is expected to climb to 30 per cent. during the next 10 years. He then made the point that it was therefore
	critical that we have a common understanding of the core values of the Civil Service and that those values are reinforced through legislation.
	We are talking about not just the recent events that have hit the headlines such as the Jo Moore affair, important though they are, but the whole trend by which the civil service is changing. Some of those changes are no doubt for the better.
	The case of David Kelly was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. He pointed out that if Dr. Kelly had been able to use a statutory appeal procedure circumstances might have been different. The case of Judy Weleminsky has also been mentioned. I shall not go into detail about that as it is a matter of privilege, but a serious allegation has been made against the Lord Chancellor.
	Concerns are being expressed not only by politicians and the FDA; Sir Nigel Wicks, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has reflected widely voiced concerns about what has been going on at Downing street. The hon. Member for North Cornwall quoted Sir Nigel extensively and the Phillis report has been referred to by many hon. Members.
	Many years ago, the Government made promises that they have repeated over time but, so far, nothing has happened. This debate is about trading words for delivery. It is about putting the Act in place; let us have some action. It is about helping the Labour party to stick to its manifesto commitments. Both sides of the House agree that we want the Billand we want it now.

Phil Woolas: It is a pleasure to reply to this interesting and well-informed debate, which was opened by the return from the after-dinner speaking circuit of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who gave us an entertaining and informed speech.
	Before I deal with the specific points made by hon. Members, I reiterate that the Government accept in principle the case for legislation. As the House has heard this afternoon, we are committed to bringing forward a draft Bill for consultation in this parliamentary Session.

Paul Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the ninth report of the Wicks Committee records that Sir Richard Wilson told the Public Administration Committee, in November 2001, that consultation on a civil service Act would start in the new yearthat is, in 2002? Two months later, on 26 February 2002, the Cabinet Office again promised that consultation on a civil service Act would start shortly. Why should we attach more credibility to the promises given this afternoon than to those that were given then?

Phil Woolas: Because, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will recognise that a statement from a Minister at the Dispatch Box carries the weight of the Government. The comments to which he referred were the viewsproper viewsof the civil service. The Government welcomed the work of the Public Administration Committee both when we were informed that it was starting and on several occasions since the report was published. It is mischievous of the hon. Gentleman to question our intentions, although I understand the points that he made and will come back to some of them later.
	I record the Government's thanks for the extremely constructive contributions that we have received from several quarters, including the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Sir Nigel Wicks, and the Public Administration Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I emphasise that we welcomed that work while it was taking place and on the production of the reports. I am grateful to all Members who took part in the debate today for their input, which will inform our deliberations on the draft Bill.

Oliver Heald: Would not one way forward be for the Minister simply to agree to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the House on the Bill that the Public Administration Committee has produced? Indeed, would not that be the best way forward?

Phil Woolas: It would be one way forward, although it is interesting that, in calling for a Division on the motion, the hon. Gentleman is rejecting what he has called for in the House on several occasions: the further expansion of pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills. Incidentally, that innovation was introduced and developed by the Government. As he says, that may be one way forward, but if today's debate proves anything it is that there are further points for deliberation and some criticisms, especially the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), which show that there would be virtue in subjecting a Government-produced draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. That process could develop some of the points that have been made and I should have thought that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) would welcome such a commitment.

Oliver Heald: We want to see an end to the shilly-shallying. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to the Public Administration Committee's Bill being put immediately into pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee, I will withdraw my Bill.

Phil Woolas: The House will note that 16 days since the report was published we are accused of shilly-shallying. After 18 yearsindeed, 150 years, as the Chairman of the Committee informed usof debate on this, I do not think that shilly-shallying is an accusation that sticks. Rug and pulled from under is perhaps a better description in regard to the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
	I turn to some of the points made in the debate, because I have a duty to respond to them. Perhaps I should try to put in context what I believe the debate and the Opposition motionat times it was difficult to believe that it was an Opposition motionare really all about.
	The former shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life in July 2002. Members of the Wicks Committee asked him to put his remarks in context, and he said, referring to the allegation of further politicisation of the civil service:
	I accept entirely that the problems, if there are problems, did not start in 1997. We are talking about a continuation of trends, although I would argue a quite substantial acceleration of them. Secondly, it is important to put this in the context of the civil service, which I think overall remains working extremely well, internationally admired, and has many strengths on which to build.
	I concur with those remarks.
	What the Opposition are doing is political mischief making. When Labour is in power, the Conservative Opposition always accuse us of somehow attacking the impartiality of the civil service and politicising it.For example, there have been accusations about the chief of staff at Downing street; Jonathan Powell has been referred to as somehow being a politicisation of No. 10. Jonathan Powell is widely admired throughout the civil service and throughout the diplomatic service, from where he was recruited as an official for the Government in Washington. He is hardly a party political appointment. If hon. Members could have heard some of the reaction to his appointment from certain quarters of the Labour party, they would hardly have said that it was a matter of politicisation.
	This is Conservative mischief. In his 45-minute speechwhich we all admired; we all admire the style and commitment with which he puts his casethe right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said one thing that was particularly wise: that the danger of being so long in opposition is that the Opposition come to believe their own propaganda. That is true and I think that that is what is happening. There have been two or three allegations of politicisation. Yet the statements from Cabinet Secretaries, the Wicks Committee and the First Division Association have shown that they do not accept that there has been undue politicisation. In fact, they do not accept that there has been any politicisation.
	The First Division Association and others have welcomed the existence of special advisers, not because they are fearful of them, but because they recognise, as does anybody who has worked at the interface between the civil service and Government, that they are a desirable protector of the very independence of the civil service about which the Opposition spokesman feigns concern.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when we reached the point at which Alastair Campbell was chairing meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, to supervise the drafting of what would be presented to the public as the best intelligence available on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, his sole thought was to defend the independence of the civil service? Is that as far as his thinking has gone so far?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. In his opening remarks he alleged that there had been meetings of officials, advisers and Ministers that had not been minuted. Well, what an improvement that was on the situation under a previous Conservative Government, whereby the then Prime Minister did not even bother to have a meeting, let alone take a minute of it. Information about the fact that Alastair Campbell allegedly chaired a meetinginformation was made available on thathas come about because the Government, in setting up the Hutton inquiry, have been open in coming forward with such information. It is this Government who introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is this Government who are proposing to put the codes of conduct on the legislative book. It is this Government who have ensured that ministerial codes of conduct are in force. In my view, these accusations are no more than political mischief-making.

Edward Garnier: rose

Mark Francois: rose

Phil Woolas: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but then I must move on because there is very little time left.

Edward Garnier: The Minister unwittingly may have made a slightly disingenuous point a moment ago because he levelled an accusation at Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was. The difference between Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Campbell is that Mrs. Thatcher was accountable to the House, whereas Mr. Campbell is not and never has been.

Phil Woolas: It was Mrs. Thatcher who, in 1979, appointed her press secretary as chief of staff. The accusation was made at the time by the then Opposition[Interruption.] Mr. Wolfson was the chief of staff and press secretary, and the accusation was made at the time, by the then Opposition, that that was politicisation. I would suggest to the House that this is good fun, rough-and-tumble politics, but that the accusation has no substance.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Woolas: No, I really must make progress because I have not responded to a number of hon. Members. There is very little time left.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) quoted figures on the Government communications budget. I want to put the facts on the record. He pointed out that there had been an increase in the budget, and there hasa substantial increase in the budget on emergency communications. I want to clarify that that extra resource is not for political work or policy work, but relates to incidents such as flooding, natural disasters or terrorism, and the information on that is publicly available.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, made a typically well-informed speech, and reminded the House of why trust in an objective civil service is so necessary. I put it to the House that an objective and impartial civil service is desired by all Governments, especially the present Government, because it is necessary in order to implement and deliver the policies on which we deliberate.
	The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who has changed places, said that he agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that we should not be partisan on this matter, that we should not be party political and that we should proceed by consensus. He then spent 10 minutes launching the most political attack on the Government that the House has heard for some time. I think that I have answered his points about Jonathan Powell. However, I did want to draw to the attention of the House the full quote from the Phillis review of Government communicationsor rather, the quote to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer:
	We believe special advisers to be an integral part of modern government, and their political affiliation is both welcomed by Ministers and an important buttress to the impartiality of the Civil Service
	the words of the Phillis review, not of Ministers. That is an important point to put on record. I am sorry that there is not time to respond to all the points

David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the motion today is in the name of the official Opposition, we are quite pleased to give the Minister another five minutes or so, to enable him to respond to the points raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that that point could have been established in other ways.

Phil Woolas: And I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are more than capable of making that point, and I thank you for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whom we should congratulate on the reintroduction of his ten-minute Bill, made a very important point of substance in his contribution to the debate, repeating some of the points that were made in yesterday's debate. He highlighted the inconsistencies in respect of who can and cannot be employed by the civil service. That is welcome. Those arguments are a further example of why the House should accept the Government amendment in calling for a draft Bill to be given pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than accepting a politically motivated Opposition motion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East who, as the House will know, issued a minority report on the Select Committee proceedings, should also be congratulated on making cogent arguments. The issues that he has raised further back up the way forward that was outlined today by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) reminded us, if the House needed reminding, that it was the previous Conservative Government who introduced the notion of one of us, who saw the most blatant politicisation of political and civic institutions in this country and who turned power away from independent, objective analysis to Ministers and their special advisers to implement their policies quite ruthlessly.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a typically polite speech. It was well informed but misguided. The Government place the highest importance on maintaining a strong, politically impartial civil service that is fit for purpose and equipped to deliver. Indeed, as I have said, that is in our interest, as well as the country's. That objective underpins the Government's approach to the future of the civil service. It is essential that the civil service has the right skills and expertise to do the job, and we are taking steps to promote and reform it.
	It is this Government who have given power away, who have devolved power and who have created independence in the Bank of England, the Competition Commission and elsewhere. That work goes hand in hand with maintaining and reinforcing the civil service values of integrity, impartiality and appointment on meritall of which are integral to the Government's approachand that will continue to be reflected in the months and years ahead.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 328.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's commitment, in its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to publish a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation; acknowledges the contribution made to the discussion of these issues in recent days by the Public Administration Select Committee; notes the failure of any previous Conservative Government to legislate for the Civil Service; and welcomes this Government's commitment to reforming and modernising the Civil Service to ensure that it continues to deliver a first class service to the people of this country.

Scottish Constituencies (Members' Voting Rights)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Peter Duncan: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the practice of Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on bills concerning issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, especially those which introduce in England measures that have been rejected in Scotland; condemns the unfairness that this represents to those in English constituencies and the Government's failure to address the problem; notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation; calls on other Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies similarly to abstain from such votes; and believes that the fairest long-term solution is for bills on areas of policy which have been devolved to Scotland to be so ratified by the Speaker and for Right honourable and honourable Members from Scottish constituencies to abstain from voting on such bills.
	The Scotland Act was passed on 19 November 1998, and it was greeted with a general welcome north of the border. Scotland would have its first Parliament for 300 years, and a new political landscape unfolded in Scotland. No longer would we Scots be able to put our failings entirely down to the failings of Westminster; we could deal adequately with our unique political and social issues. No longer could the carping continue. Within the powers of the new Scottish Parliament lay the ability radically to influence our own nation. Rightly, the Scottish nation wanted, and received, the ability to direct its own course on a whole raft of policy issues.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Duncan: The motion is about ensuring that devolution works. The Scottish Parliament is here to stayall 400 million-worth of it. [Hon. Members: Give way.] The only other option for Scotland is to follow the policies of separatism and independence, so often rejected by the Scots electorate. We wish to give no further oxygen to the separatists and nationalists, and that is why we want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's continued failure to address the West Lothian question.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I welcome his wish to give no extra oxygen to the forces of separatism. Does he therefore agree with the comments of his boss, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)? A couple of years ago, in opposing a ten-minute Bill moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the right hon. Gentleman said:
	If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairsassuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt . . . we could let loose forces which, if ruthlessly exploited, could make us strangers to ourselves.[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 925.]
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion would achieve precisely that?

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will find out shortly whether I agree.
	Put simply, it does nothing for the cause of stable devolution and good government across the United Kingdom for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies such as my own to continue to seek to vote on legislation in this House for which the equivalent power has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
	It is somehow appropriate that we are bringing the matter to the attention of the House today in the week following the announcement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he will not seek re-election. The fact that we face the prospect of the architect of the West Lothian question leaving the House before his constitutional dilemma is properly addressed is an indictment that we must try to avoid. The outside world recognised long ago that this constitutional outrage would have to be addressed. Indeed, in 1998 The Herald interviewed the hon. Gentleman, who is now Father of the House, and he said:
	It was in 1997, and I kept asking how can I vote on education in Accrington but not Armadale, local government in Birmingham but not Bathgate, health in Liverpool but not Linlithgow.
	When responding to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, Enoch Powell christened that the West Lothian question. Twenty-seven years later, it is high time the hon. Gentleman had an answer.
	Of course the Government have their own solution. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in the Daily Mail on 17 July 1999:
	now that we have devolution up and running, I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian Question is to stop asking it.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Duncan: As the Scottish Parliament enters its sixth year, it is legitimate to ask why the Government have completely failed to address that question. It is really not that difficult. The Scottish people themselves realise that the issue must be addressed before it further undermines the new constitutional settlement.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Duncan: I was interested to read in a recent newspaper poll that a clear majority of Scots back our view that hon. Members with seats in Scotland should abstain on devolved matters. It is unusual for this Government to be so dismissive of opinion polls. We are well used to them being dismissive of their own manifesto commitments, but suddenly public opinion in Scotland does not seem to matter either.

Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency recently, he will have been aware of the presence of St. Andrews university. Is he seriously suggesting that, if it is my considered judgment that the passing into law of the Higher Education Bill would have long-term implications for that university and its students, I should abstain next Tuesday evening?

Peter Duncan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn shortly why I feel that he should abstain. The Scottish Parliament has made its decision on tuition fees, and I will come to that shortly.
	Devolution, as Scots know, has reached a fork in the road. We can do as the Government would hope, and keep our hands firmly buried in the sandfailing to accept the natural consequences of devolution and putting the stability of the settlement at riskor recognise that devolution has moved Scotland on. [Interruption.] Government Members might do well to listen. Devolution has moved both Scotland and the United Kingdom on

Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Duncan: We must accept the consequences[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the House has had a demonstration that the hon. Member at the Dispatch Box will indicate when he is giving way. If he does not wish to give way, that has to be respected. In addition, it would be better if we had less sedentary barracking.

Peter Duncan: Do we recognise that devolution has moved Scotland and the United Kingdom on, accept its consequences and thus build it on a stronger foundation?
	Let us review why we have reached this fork in the road at this time. The point is that the Government have so lamentably lost control of their own Back Benchers that rebellions are regular and their huge majority faces constant threat. The last occasion on which the fork in the road was clearly in focus was in November last year, when the House faced a choice on whether to introduce foundation hospitals in England and Wales. Despite the fact that that part of health policy is clearly a devolved power, the Government survived the vote only with the assistance of their Scottish Lobby fodder on their Back Benches. Even though the decision on whether to introduce that policy for their constituents was clearly within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Members saw fit to troop lamely through the Lobby and save the day for their beleaguered Prime Minister.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He referred to the vote on foundation hospitals. Does he remember that, when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was shadow Health Secretary, he said that after devolution he could not fill the role of an English Health Secretary dealing with English health matters? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not alone in making that argument.

Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The irony continued: not only did Scottish Members vote on foundation hospitals, but they followed through the Lobby a Secretary of State for Health who represents a constituency to which he did have to answer for that policy.
	That travesty was made even worse by the knowledge that the Scottish Labour party, of which those hon. Members are such loyal servants, had explicitly ruled out a similar policy in Scotland. In the Scottish Parliament, David McLetchie MSP asked the First Minister:
	Will the First Minister . . . . follow the lead of the Prime Minister by setting up foundation hospitals?
	The First Minister replied:
	We share the objectives and the end result, but the processes in Scotland and in England are, quite rightly, different. There are different education systems in Scotland than there are in England and there are different health structures. We are a smaller country. We can do it even better. We can be bold and radical and we can ensure that we make a difference.[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 3 October 2002; c. 14411.]
	That is as near as the First Minister gets to a straight answer, but it shows how entirely duplicitous the Scottish Labour party has become.

Brian H Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman has been talking for almost 10 minutes, but he has not mentioned Northern Ireland. It is strange that he attacks Scottish Members of Parliament but not Northern Ireland Members. Why is that?

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is currently no devolution in Northern Ireland. I shall address that point in due course.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Peter Duncan: Here we learn the extent of Labour's undermining of the Uniona policy that Scottish Members are not willing to countenance for their own constituencies, but which they are willing to impose on England and Wales. Is it any wonder that resentment is now building against Tony's tartan army?

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Duncan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman at the back.

Hon. Members: Oh!

David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman in any way concerned that his historical and traditional allies, the Ulster Unionists, who were once part of the Conservative and Unionist party, feel unable to support the motion for fundamental constitutional reasons, and will go into the Lobby with Her Majesty's Government?

Peter Duncan: I am genuinely sorry to hear that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that devolution is now settled and stable in Scotland, but regrettably the situation is different in Northern Ireland.
	I abstained in the Division on foundation hospitals, and am happy to accept that, as a consequence of devolution, the decision on foundation hospitals in Scotland should be made by the Scottish Parliament.

Russell Brown: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I have asked him many times before and to which he has never responded. People who live at the eastern end of my constituency do not depend on Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary for hospital care; they depend on the Cumberland infirmary at Carlisle. Was I wrong to vote for foundation hospitals, bearing in mind the fact that my constituents depend on an English health authority for health service provision?

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues, is seeking to deny devolution and the fact that it created that situation. It is extraordinary that the Labour party in Scotland sought to gain political advantage from devolution, but now that it is in place it is seeking to avoid the logical consequence of its decision. The foundation hospitals vote exposed another U-turn by the Scottish National party. Strangely for the nationalists, they had adopted a principled stance and decided not to vote on devolved issues. However, when they smelt blood on the issue of foundation hospitals they adopted an opportunistic stance, and voted with the aim of defeating the Government.
	The House should be aware that the actions of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues then and now are designed to destabilise the constitutional settlement. However, a brief analysis of the separatist position exposes their ridiculous hypocrisy and opportunism. If Scotland were an independent country as the nationalists wish, they would not even be represented in the House and would have no say whatever in what England decided to do with its university system. If England introduced top-up fees, the effect on an independent Scotland would be the same as it would be if the Government won Tuesday's vote. Are we to assume that for the purposes of this issue SNP Members are happy to be part of the United Kingdom?

Alex Salmond: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has realised that a consequence of independence is that there would be no Scottish MPs at Westminster. However, to pursue a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times in this Parliament on English legislation, some of which, such as the Mersey Tunnels Bill, would have no financial consequences for Scotland whatever. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has pointed out, the Higher Education Bill has direct consequences for Scotland. How can the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale abstain on things that are of vital interest to Scotland yet vote on things in which Scotland has no interest?

Peter Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that later in my argument. There is a simple resolution to the problem. The Speaker should certificate which Bills are, or are not, devolved, and Members of Parliament from Scotland should vote accordingly.
	The rationale of the nationalists' position is that they would only ever vote when higher public expenditure in England and Wales was possible, provided that that would result in greater funds for the Scottish Executive. That is unsustainable and will not work. It is designed with one objective in mindthe undermining of the United Kingdom. On that basis, I am happy to oppose the nationalists' view.

George Foulkes: On the classification of Bills, does the hon. Gentleman remember how he voted on the Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? How will he vote on Report, as all but three clauses apply to England and Wales, three clauses apply to Scotland and three to the whole United Kingdom? If we adopt the procedure that he suggests on Report we will have a legislative hokey-cokeyI'll vote on this but not on thatwhich is ridiculous and unworkable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one is going to start a hokey-cokey while I am in the Chair.

Peter Duncan: The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is getting excited on his birthday, and has forgotten that that Bill has already completed its Report stage. It is obvious that a Member of Parliament from Scotland should vote on clauses with an element that is applicable to Scotland, but otherwise should not. The simple issue is whether Mr. Speaker should be given the ability to certificate Billscould he do so, much of the confusion would end.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) complained that he would not be able to vote on an issue affecting patients in his constituency who attend hospitals in England. The same applies to me, because I cannot vote on issues involving patients in my constituency who travel to Borders general hospital at Melrose.

Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. That is called devolutionor that is what the Government led us to believe. We pointed out such difficulties at the time, but they now seek to deny them.
	The next test of double standards in Scottish politics will come next Tuesday, when the House makes its long-awaited decision on the Higher Education Bill. Much of the comment over the past few days has centred on the belief that there will be a cross-border effect in the top-up fees vote. It is suggested that Scottish universities will be substantially affected and that Scots students will pay the fees when attending higher education institutions south of the border. I agree. I speak as a Scot who graduated with some pride from the University of Birmingham, where some of the most active student groups were those of the Scots.
	I entirely accept that whatever the result in the House, universities in Scotland will have to respond and compete. The Scottish Executive will have to review their policies to ensure that Scottish institutions of tertiary education are not disadvantagedindeed, that they can be made to flourish in an increasingly competitive market. But that is for the Scottish Executive to decidethat was the result of the passing of the Scotland Act 1998. There are inevitably cross-border effects: the only way of preventing them is to ensure that all policies are the same across the UK. Devolution wasand isabout allowing things to be different. There was a cross-border effect when the Scottish Parliament took its decision on tuition fees in 2001. The stage 3 vote was taken on 29 March that year. Students from outside Scotland, within the UK, found that their own Member of Parliamentmy hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) must be one suchwas unable to influence the new financial arrangements. I am sure that many hon. Members south of the border received correspondence from constituents on that point, but were unable to participate in the vote. It is called devolution, and it needs to work.
	One can imagine the constitutional crisis that would have ensued if English and Welsh Members had sought to change that decision. They would have been accused of denying Scotland its rightful post-devolution say in higher education. The same Scots MPs who will make up the lobby fodder for the Government next Tuesday would have hounded them. I restate the call made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on Sunday: in the interests of students across the UK, and of stable and successful devolution, hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies should abstain from the vote next Tuesday.

Malcolm Savidge: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether the Leader of the Opposition is advising Tory Members in the House of Lords to abstain on such votes?

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that Members of the House of Lords do not have constituenciesthat is the difference.
	We have never pretended that these are easy issues. They are as difficult now as they were in 1977, and they will not get any easier if the House postpones addressing them. I point particularly to the fact that it is not always clear whether an equivalent power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. How much more straightforward it would be if Mr. Speaker were to certificate on each Bill whether it exclusively concerned matters of policy devolved to the Scottish Parliament; that would make the position entirely clear and transparent.
	I commend that suggestion to the Government. Not least, it might assist them in making an accurate analysis of my voting record. We certificate each piece of legislation as being, for example, compliant with the European convention on human rights. Some Labour Members suggest that it would be too complicated for the Speaker to certificate in that way. I reject that suggestion, and I suspect that you do, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once Mr. Speaker had certificated legislation, we would expect hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to abstain on Divisions by voluntary convention. I urge Members on both sides of the House to recognise the advantages of such a move.

Frank Roy: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is proposing a part-time Member of Parliament who would not take part in all the work of the House. If he does not want to participate in work on English legislation, will he take a pay cut?

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular issue. I have said that salaries for Members of Parliament are not an issue for Members of Parliament. I am content for the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider that matter, and no doubt it will comment in due course.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Duncan: I will give way, for the final time, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Lembit �pik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. If I have understood his argument, he wants to see devolution work in a sustained and stable way. Will he therefore confirm that he would like to see the fulfilment of the devolution settlement in Wales by further devolution? Will he also confirm that Conservative policy is that any future Conservative MP sent here from Wales will not be permitted to vote on issues that do not apply to Wales?

Peter Duncan: As far as Wales is concerned, obviously we are awaiting the Richards report, which we will consider in due course. As for MPs from Wales, the hon. Gentleman knows that there is currently a significant difference between devolution in Scotland and devolution in Wales. The key issue is that the Scottish Parliament has the ability to legislate.
	This morning, President Bush delivered his state of the union address. Like the UK, the United States of America is a union founded on mutual consent and respect among its constituent parts, so it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the state of our Union.
	Too many hon. Members have not accepted that the rules of the game have changed since devolution. It is unacceptable and unsustainable for hon. Members from Scotland to continue to force through legislation that is unwanted by the majority of hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by it. Such constitutionally cavalier behaviour merely breeds resentment, which one must concede is perfectly understandable.
	Devolution will never be deemed a success until that constitutional imbalance is addressed though a Bill certification system. Until that happens, it is incumbent on hon. Members with Scottish constituencies to examine the potential consequences of their actions. We know that the nationalists have their own agenda, but I urge Unionist Members from Scotland to stop playing into the hands of those who wish to see our Union brought to its knees. Devolution is about answering the difficult questions as well as the easy ones; the West Lothian question must be answered before very much longer.

Anne McGuire: I beg to move, To leave out from House to end and add
	believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom..
	It is not often that I have this affliction, but what we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has almost left me speechless. I want to be generous to him, but there has never been a better example of an hon. Member bumbling into a situation that he cannot get out of.
	I am faced with the dilemma of how seriously to take the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. For reasons that I shall outline, it is hard to debate the motion, which was advanced by the Conservative and Unionist party. The hon. Gentleman's principled position is not really principled, becauseas hon. Members have already identifiedhis voting record shows how often he has breached that principle.

James Gray: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's mother is a constituent of mine, so I would be afraid to return to my constituency if I did not take an intervention from him. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I do it in my time, not his.
	Labour Members firmly believe in the importance of constitutional principles, not the fly-by-night principles that the Conservative party outlined. We believe in the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster and that all hon. Members should have equal rights and equal responsibilities. Those responsibilities are exercised on behalf of the United Kingdom, not simply on a constituency basis.

Jacqui Lait: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire: I shall take an intervention from the former shadow spokesperson for Scotland, who did the job from Beckenham.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful. Although much of my family lives in Scotland, the Under-Secretary will be pleased to know that no members live in her constituency.
	What is the point of principle in reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland in Westminster and maintaining the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? The purpose is merely to continue to dominate the Scottish economy.

Anne McGuire: That is a debate for another day.
	We believe that there is a delicate balance in our constitution between the Executive and the legislature and between the centre and the nations and regions of our country. The constitution should be flexible enough to accommodate change while maintaining that internal balance. The Conservative party should consider that seriously, especially in view of the advice that it is getting from the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale One.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale claims that he will not vote on so-called English issues. He and the Leader of the Opposition have paraded that so-called principle around the country's newsrooms. It fair put me off my breakfast on Sunday morning. However, as many other hon. Members have said, closer inspection sees that principled position unravelling before our eyes. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, we all know about the Mersey tunnel. Which part of the Mersey did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale believe to be in Scotland when he voted on that measure? How does he explain the principle behind his vote on top-up fees on 23 June 2003?

James Gray: On behalf of my mother and the good people of Dunblane, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why is she, as Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, wherever that may be, replying to the debate, which is entirely about English votes on English matters? She mentioned the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland. How can he come to England and pontificate on motorways and Mersey tunnels when he claims to be a Scot?

Anne McGuire: Every boy is a mother's son, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that since the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale opened for the Opposition, it is perfectly logical for me to make a contribution.

Peter Duncan: The Under-Secretary cited a vote on top-up fees. Will she be more generous and concede that that was not on legislation? It is perfectly legitimate for a Scottish Member to sign an early-day motion, but not to vote on legislation. That is the key point.

Anne McGuire: Let us consider deliberations on the Criminal Justice Bill last year. I have all the Divisions on English issues flagged. I say in a spirit of generosity that the hon. Gentleman has painted himself into a corner. On 23 June 2003, in a debate on English education, he said:
	I am not a regular participant in education debates in this Chamber for the obvious reason that Scottish education is largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This issue does affect me, however, as I have children in education in Scotland who may well attend a higher education institution in England.[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 755.]
	I am a generous woman and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that to err is human, but I have to say that to err on more than 30 occasionsthe most recent being on 18 November 2003is neither divine nor human, but a blatant example of Conservative cynicism.
	We have a feeling of dj vu, given that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) debated this very subject in Westminster Hall just a few days ago. That debate was fully answered by the Deputy Leader of the House. Two debates on the same constitutional issue have taken place within a matter of days. Why? Not because the Opposition care about the constitution. Indeed, the fact that we are having a second debate in such a short time proves exactly the opposite.

Peter Pike: rose

George Osborne: rose

Anne McGuire: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
	The Opposition are willing to take any course and ride roughshod over some of our most cherished and fundamental matters of principle, which underpin our constitution. That is the dangerous conundrum that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has got himself into today.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that the Conservative party is so committed to devolution that Conservative Members would admit that it was totally wrong to allow Tory MPs to vote in strength to introduce the poll tax in Scotland during the 198387 Parliament?

Anne McGuire: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the poll tax unfairness was pre-devolution. However, the lesson of the poll tax is linked to what my hon. Friend says, because, by introducing general taxation in one part of the UK without introducing it universally, the Conservative Government upset the delicate balance between the regions of the United Kingdomthat is what they did.

George Osborne: rose

Anne McGuire: Let me make some progress.
	The Opposition must answer several fundamental questions in the debate. Why are they attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster? How do they believe that an Executive can carry on when a Government party of any colour is able to command a majority only on some issues, not on others? What alternative form of constitution do they propose? Are they asking us to choose between federalism, which may well be supported by the Liberal Democrats, and breaking up the Union? Is that what they want?

Andrew Turner: The Minister referred earlier to what she described as opportunism. Is she aware that I, in common with all my hon. Friends, stood for Parliament at the last election on a manifesto that spoke of English votes for English mattersand that was before the Prime Minister had broken the promises that he made in the same election? [Interruption.]

Anne McGuire: The chorus says it all, and the hon. Gentleman's party lost.
	I am rapidly coming to a conclusion: that the Conservative party sits in the Scottish Parliament, which it claims not to believe in; that Conservative Members' colleagues sit in the European Parliament, which they do not believe in; and I am now beginning to suspect that Conservative Members sit in this Parliament without believing in it.

George Osborne: rose

Ann McKechin: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Opposition appear to have forgotten the terms of the code of conduct for Members of the House, which state that they have
	a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents?

Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for putting that appropriate comment on the record. I would hope that some Conservative Members[Interruption.]

George Osborne: rose

Anne McGuire: I want to make some progress.
	The Opposition's argument today ignores constitutional principles. In view of the principled flim-flam that we heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I hate to tell him that his argument was constructed for short-term gain based on parliamentary arithmetic. He made that particularly clear towards the end of his speech.
	Quite simply, the Opposition's argument is designed to remove the voting rights from a core group of MPs. The constitution should not be used in that way.

Several hon. Members: rose

Anne McGuire: I shall not give way, as I want to make some progress. I am aware that lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should like to leave them some time, so that we can get as many arguments on the record as possible.
	The constitution of this country limits political power and balances the relationship between our institutions. We cannot, and should not, change it by adopting stupid procedural alterations that would have fundamental consequences. Have the Opposition really considered what their so-called simple suggestion would mean? It is bizarre for a Conservative and Unionist party to advocate proposals whose consequences could signal the end of the partnership that is the United Kingdom.

Alan Duncan: Clearly, this is not a short-term issue, as it has been bubbling away for the best part of 30 years. Will the Minister deal with the central problemthe lack of parity between Members of this House with Scottish constituencies and those with English constituencies? At the moment, Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English ones cannot vote on Scottish matters. Furthermore, that lack of parity is compounded by the fact that Scottish Members of this Parliament cannot vote on most Scottish issues. Does the Minister accept that some rebalancing of our procedures is needed, given that lack of parity?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a very civilised manner, but he ignores the central aspect of the Opposition's argumentthat there should be two classes of Members of Parliament in this House.

Several hon. Members: rose

Anne McGuire: We are getting into difficult territory, so I shall refer the House to the comments of one of our colleagues, who set out the consequences of the Opposition's position most effectively. He said:
	Let us imagine a situation . . . where the withdrawal of Scottish MPs left a majority on English matters in the House different from that of the UK Government. One would then, necessarily, end up with a Government elected on a manifesto significant parts of which they could not deliver, and a competing Administration, unable to deliver their manifesto because they could not command the business of the House, and would therefore depend on the opportunistic hijacking of the Government's proposals.[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 924.]
	That is very well put. That observation was made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)the shadow Secretary of State for local and devolved government.

David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made his remarks when opposing a Bill brought in under the ten-minute rule? Most of the Labour Members who voted on that Bill voted for the position advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, as he made a brilliant case for retaining this Parliament as a UK Parliament. It is unfortunate that his should be the second name on today's motion.

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend encapsulates the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. The motion under debate undermines the arguments that he put forward then.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: No. I have said that I want to allow plenty of time for Back Benchers to make contributions.
	This Parliament is a UK Parliament. It is a sovereign Parliament. It was sovereign before devolution, and remains so today. The Scotland Act 1998 states that explicitly. It is entirely alien to this Parliament that there should be two classes of Member.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: No, I want to[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we need a little less excitement.

Anne McGuire: I remind the Opposition that the rights of the member nations of the UK have been debated in this House since the 18th century. The same conclusion has been reached time after timethat it is unacceptable to have different classes of Members in a UK Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose

Anne McGuire: I think I have made it perfectly clear that I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment.
	We have before us an Opposition motion that has not been drafted in some treatise by Burke, by Gladstone or by some eminent royal commission, or as a result of considered cross-party discussion. It is a tawdry exercise by a party that, for potential short-term gain, wishes to ransom an arrangement that has stood the test of time in this House.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: No.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is leading his party down the road of supporting the nationalists, and he cannot get away from that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale about one of the comments of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, whom I shall embarrass one more time. He said:
	I do fear that we shall be providing the weapon for an assault on the integrity of the Union . . . If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairsassuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt.[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 325, c. 925.]
	Those are not my words, but the words of a leading member of the shadow Cabinet.
	I suggest to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that the Government, by contrast with his party, have taken a principled position on how the electorate in Scotland are to be represented in this House. We have acknowledged the argument that Scotland is over-represented here, and although it is for the boundary commission to make final decisions, that representation will be reduced by 13 seats. That is a sensible, magnanimous and principled change, brought about because some Members have been asked to put aside their personal interests to implement it.

George Osborne: rose

Andrew Turner: rose

Anne McGuire: I am not taking any more interventions at the moment.
	We have a flexible constitution that recognises that we have an asymmetric country and that we need to meet its changing demands. In other words, our constitution works.

Andrew Turner: Given that an elector in my constituency has one 100,000th of a say in the election of its Member of Parliament, how can the Minister defend a position in which electors in parts of Scotland have one 25,000th of a say?

Anne McGuire: The argument against having two classes of Member of Parliament has been made by the hon. Gentleman's own Front-Bench spokesman on devolved government. That argument has already been made, not by the Government but by the Opposition.

George Osborne: rose

Anne McGuire: I just want to deal with one final point that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale raised. He said that he wanted the Speaker to have a power to tag some Bills geographically. The hon. Gentleman assumes that that would be a neat solution, but like so many of the Tories' neat solutions, from the poll tax to the botched privatisation of the railways, it is not simple at all. At best, it would be extremely complex to administer and, moreover, we would be in danger of prejudicing the impartiality of the Chair. How would the Speaker tag the Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill, for example, which contains issues that undoubtedly impact on Scotland? And what if the majority of the House thought that the Speaker was wrong?
	Anyway, why stop at Hadrian's wall? Why not follow the logic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and say that a Manchester MP cannot speak on the future of airports in the south-east of England, or that only London MPs should vote on the future of Heathrow, or perhaps that all naval decisions should be made by MPs who represent Portsmouth?

Alex Salmond: The position of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale on top-up fees is totally absurd, as is his voting record. However, may I point out that the Speaker already has the power to certify Bills as exclusively Scottish and send them to the Scottish Grand Committee? Why would it therefore be such a problem to give him a similar power for English matters?

Anne McGuire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, by convention the Grand Committee has not legislated, so that would be a difficult move to make. I am interested, however, in his and his party's very positive contribution to the debate.
	One final point should be addressed. Why do the Opposition talk only about the voting rights of Scottish MPs? Why is there no mention of colleagues from Wales who vote on matters that are devolved to Wales? Why not question the voting rights of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who vote on Great Britain matters that will not extend to Northern Ireland? The reason, of course, is not the fact that Members with Scottish constituencies vote; it is how the majority of them vote that really irritates the Opposition.
	The motion is not constitutional. It is an attempt by the Tories to gerrymander votes in the House to their own political ends. Members on the Labour Benches believe that we remain a United Kingdom Parliament and that, as such, we shall not move into a realm where there are first and second-class Members of the House.
	I have spent all my political life endeavouring to minimise participation in the House of Commons by Opposition Members and their parties, but I have done so in the proper fashion: I have taken my arguments to the electorate. Since 1997, the Scottish electorate have agreed with me in almost every casethe exception is that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Since 1997, Scottish electors have had the opportunity to choose a Conservative on 144 occasions, yet on 143 they have refused.
	The hon. Gentleman is a Member, however. May I suggest to him that that is a privilege and a solemn responsibility? In all sincerity, I ask him not to shirk that responsibility, not to treat it lightly, not to parley it for short-term political opportunity. I ask him to participate with us, as a full member of the United Kingdom. That is the principled position. I ask the House to reject this foolish motion and to vote for the amendment.

John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on his Damascene conversion to the cause of devolution, but may I invite him to think that through to its logical conclusion?
	At the heart of the debate is the West Lothian question. It is a real and serious issue that merits careful consideration; we need to look at the principles behind it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and his hon. Friends introduced their motion in such a self-congratulatory and self-seeking way; the subject deserves better than that.
	The West Lothian question was first put about 27 years ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the present Father of the House. That was well before the current devolution settlement, and well before its implications had been experienced. We must consider the issue in the light of that settlement and its success in the devolved nations. From that perspective, it is clear that the West Lothian question needs to be rephrased. Instead of asking, Why should the Member for West Lothianor Linlithgow as it is nowvote on English matters, when his English counterpart cannot vote on West Lothian matters?, we should ask, Why does the English citizen not enjoy the same representation and democratic accessibility as his or her counterpart in West Lothian?
	Which end of the telescope do we want to look through? That is at the heart of the debate. For those who, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are of the opinion that devolution for the nations of the United Kingdom brings positive results and improves contact between the governed and those who govern, it is clear that England is suffering from a democratic deficit, which needs to be remedied.
	On the other hand, those who have never believed in devolution and would dearly like to see it fail will naturally ignore these facts and seek to unpick the settlement. The Conservative motion is clearly in that vein. Not for the first time, the Conservative party is simply looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
	We should take as our start point for the debate and for the serious issues within it the fact that the devolution settlements for London, Wales and Scotlandand indeed Northern Ireland, which we all hope will go to its full conclusion in due courseare all here to stay and are by and large successful. The answer to the West Lothian question, therefore, must lie in the remedy for England.

Eric Forth: While I go along to a surprising extent with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in that I am a long-standing advocate of an English Parliament, must he not acknowledge that to lump together, as he has done, the Scottish Parliament and the arrangements for London, Wales and Northern Ireland is not the right direction to take, as they are all completely and inherently different? Our focus on Scotland is valid to the extent that Scotland is the only fully legislative Parliament with a degree of taxing powers, which is why we are focusing on that.

John Thurso: I believe that my later remarks will fully answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. But I would say that it is the principle of devolution that counts, and that is what I am looking at.
	My party has always believed that the natural end result of devolution is a federal United Kingdom, where each of the nations enjoys domestic devolution within one United Kingdom state, with this Parliament as the United Kingdom federal Parliament. It is a position we have held for a long time. It is clear, and it unquestionably answers the West Lothian question. Indeed, it is the only answer.

George Foulkes: If it is not too patronising , I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he agree that we are going through a process of phased federalism? Scotland has legislative as well as Executive powers. We hope that the Assembly for Northern Ireland will soon come back, and it also has legislative as well as Executive powers. Wales is looking at the possibility of legislative powers.

Eric Forth: What about England?

George Foulkes: Absolutely. The real difficulty, which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is highlighting, is England. What we need is devolution for England or for its regions, or a combination of both.

John Thurso: I concur entirely. But I have always believed that all devolution in the area of the constitution is iterative. That is why I voted as I did on the arrangements for another place; I believe that it will be fully elected one day and that every little step on the path helps.
	I turn to the proposals in the motion. Leaving aside the rather narcissistic comments therein of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, it could be said that his proposals might offer an interim solution. But any detailed examination reveals them to be both simplistic and impractical. I shall give three examples.
	First, however, it is important to understand what devolution actually did. Here, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself to the Scotland Act 1998, although some of what I say will apply to other devolved areas.
	In the Scotland Act devolution was delegated by this Parliament. What we did here was to delegate responsibility for certain legislative and Executive action. We delegated power; we did not cede it. Power delegated is power retained. This Parliament remains sovereign and may at any time use that retained authority to pass legislation for devolved matters if it so chooses, notwithstanding the devolution settlement.
	That is clear in several sections of the Scotland Act. Section 30, for example, enables the Government by Order in Council to make any amendments or any change they wish to schedules 4 and 5, the schedules that set out both the reserved and the devolved matters. Therefore, by the simple expedient of an Order in Council, what is or is not devolved may be changed. Thus, any piece of primary legislation passed in the House could become Scottish legislation at a future date without any consideration in Scotland.
	I fully accept that that has not happened to date and that it may even be unlikely. I would certainly like to think that with the current Government it would be unlikely. But let us foresee a different situation, with two different parties in power in Scotland and in the United Kingdom Parliament, when we may find that the temptation becomes overpowering. In section 28(7), it is made absolutely clear that the powers given to the Scottish Parliament do
	not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
	Taken together, this means that any piece of primary legislation agreed to in this place by the simple expedient of an Order in Council may be imposed on Scotland, devolution or no. How do I answer my constituents if that occurs and I have neither taken part nor voted?
	Secondly, we must look at the Sewel motionthe device by which matters of legislation considered in the House that have devolved competence may be put into effect in Scotland without a Scottish Act. It was originally intended, when the Scotland Bill was being considered, that this device should be something of a back-stop, but I believe that, since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, there have been 46 Sewel motions, covering 41 Bills. If I am not allowed to take part in the proceedings in the House, on what has now become a fairly regular occurrence, my constituents are deprived of any voice in the matter.
	The third point that I raise is perhaps one of the most important, because it relates to one of the most important reserved functionsthe Treasury. Given that virtually every Bill brought before the House has financial implications or requires a money order, it is unthinkable that any hon. Member should be deprived of the right to express an opinion or to vote.

James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that almost every Bill brought before the Scottish Parliament has consequences for the Treasury, and yet I, as an English MP, have no say whatever in that?

John Thurso: By a remarkable coincidence, I was just coming to that. The point is that the funding of the Scottish Parliament is undertaken by a block vote, which is voted

Eric Forth: From English taxpayers.

John Thurso: From British taxpayers. It is voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and paid for by the British taxpayer. That block grant and how it is spent is then decided by the Scottish Parliament. There is no such arrangement for England. There is no English block grant. All the grants that are given to the devolved nations are awarded under the Barnett formulawhich is a pretty unwieldy formula, and worth considering on another occasion. At the moment, the United Kingdom Treasury and, if you like, the English Treasury, are inextricably intertwined.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the delicate balance that exists between the countries of the United Kingdom in relation to taxation, but is there not also a delicate balance between the levels of public expenditure that are financed by that taxation throughout the United Kingdom? When referring to the Barnett formula, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if there was further devolution of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to and an English regional assembly was in place, the formula's 25-year reign would have to be ended and the present unsustainable, over-generous formula would have to be replaced by a needs-based formula?

John Thurso: I am particularly happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Barnett formula is outdated and that we need a much more needs-based formula, so that any area of the United Kingdom that is deprived may be given the support to which it is entitled. But the principle that I am aiming atand it must remainis that UK Members vote on UK Treasury matters, which means voting on virtually every Bill.

Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logical consequence of what he is saying is that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, which are subject to devolved policy, will elect to vote for ever-higher public expenditure in England and Wales simply to provide, through the Barnett formula, a knock-on benefit for the Scottish Executive?

John Thurso: No, I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman because that ascribes to Scottish Members a degree of cynicism that simply does not exist.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a more practical difficulty for the Conservatives if the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) insists on saying that the Opposition motion outlines their policy? If he persists with that policy, no future Conservative Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Wales could possibly be allowed to vote, by his own party's conventions, on matters that do not relate to Wales, and no Conservative Member of Parliament representing an English constituency would vote on matters relating specifically to Wales. I therefore assume that he will advocate abstention on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, which has no bearing whatever on English Members of Parliament.

John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
	As I hope that I have made clear, any detailed consideration of the proposals in the motion shows them to be fundamentally flawed and unworkable, but there is ultimately a more important principle at stake: for so long as this is the United Kingdom Parliament, its Members must be equal in the Chamber and in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The concept of part-membership has been considered by academics and many contributors to the debate and almost universally rejected as impractical, unworkable and undesirable. Just as in another place all peers are equal irrespective of rank, office or attendance, so it must be that in the Chamber all Members must be equal. That is not to say that there is nothing the House can do about current arrangements. Indeed, an English Grand Committee to mirror the current Scottish Grand Committee should certainly be considered, as might other devices; but, in the Chamber, we must remain equal before the occupant of the Chair.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman says that, in the other place, all lords are equal; but, in fact, in that place, to reflect the specific status of certain lords, various conventions have arisen that govern their conductfor instance, the Law Lords do not vote on any item of legislationand it is exactly that kind of distinction on which the debate is designed to concentrate.

John Thurso: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, with a small degree of experience, that it is a very strongly held principle of convention in the other place that all peers are equal, despite the fact that there are obvious inequalities between them. If my memory serves me correctly, that understanding arose when an early Earl Spencer was accused of doing something nefarious by another peer; the doctrine of equality, despite whatever each peer was up to, was entered into. That is an interesting parallel, and one that we can adopt.
	So long as we are equal in the Chamber, I see absolutely no reason why Members should not serve in the Government for whatever Department they are chosen to do so by the Prime Minister. I well remember a notable English Member who fulfilled the role of Secretary of State for Wales. I never carped about that, and I do not carp the other way round.
	The Conservative party for most of its distinguished history has operated on the principle of the preservation of the status quo interspersed, when change is inevitable, with benign opportunism. It is that which gave us Disraeli's one nation, Salisbury's villa conservatism and Macmillan's You've never had it so good. It is sad today to see that once-great party so far from its principles and so far from a positive Unionist stance and to have descended, with this self-congratulating and self-serving motion, into the malign opportunism of a perceived short-term gainto see a party of former British stature descend into the gutter of English nationalism. The Union deserves better, and I hope that the House rejects the motion overwhelmingly.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is now a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Helen Liddell: I will not delay the House long because it is very clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House how unacceptable the Opposition motion is. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for actually managing to get through that speech with a straight face. If we look in detail at the wording of the motion, we see that it
	notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntary to abstain from voting on such legislation.
	Let us be absolutely frank: the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he has repeatedly voted on legislation that affects England. I tried to do some research into his election address at the past election, and I found no reference to the fact that it was his intention to come here as a part-time Member of Parliamentnice work if one can get it. My constituents certainly did not send me to the House as a part-time Member.

Andrew Turner: rose

Helen Liddell: I shall make some progress, and then happily give way.
	As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale made what was fundamentally an English nationalist speech. However, I should point out to Conservative Members that of the 529 hon. Members who represent English constituencies, only 164 are Conservatives. I had always believed that throughout the history of the Conservative party it had been viewed as the Conservative and Unionist party.

Eric Forth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Helen Liddell: Let me make some progress, and then I shall happily give way.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is selling the history of his party down the river, as, indeed, is his parliamentary leader. For almost a century we had devolution in Northern Ireland, yet Northern Ireland Members voted on legislation with the Conservatives. There are those of us in the House who are aware that Northern Ireland Unionists kept Conservative Governments in office by voting with them. If such voting is so heinous now, why was it not heinous then? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that point.

Eric Forth: Can the right hon. Lady explain how Scottish nationalism can be paraded with such pride and yet English nationalism can be referred to with such apparent contempt? If she is not careful and if she does not listen to the arguments that emerge in debates such as this, we are in danger of a serious English backlashI will be part of it.

Helen Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman addresses the House in a Scottish accent, but he is a Member of the House only because he represents an English constituencyScottish constituencies would have nothing to do with him.
	I am a Unionist. Many Labour Members believe that the United Kingdom is what stands best for our constituents, and that a devolved Scottish Parliament, a devolved Welsh Assembly, the continuationI hopeof devolution for Northern Ireland and devolution for the English regions that want it strengthens the United Kingdom. Conservative Members are the separatists in the argument, and seeking to have two different standards of Members of Parliament is a dangerous road to go down.

John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when there is only one Unionist party in the Housethe Labour party.

Helen Liddell: I would be tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross because he made and good and powerful Unionist speech.
	Let us be absolutely clear. The debate is not about the West Lothian question. It is a piece of cynical opportunism and an attempt to defeat a Labour Government. It is interesting that a Conservative Member is making a separatist point because the Conservatives and the real separatists defeated the Labour Government in 1979.
	The debate is about next week's consideration of the Higher Education Bill. It is important to put on record that although it is assumed that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, a third of its clauses relate to Scotland. One of the most critical aspects of the Bill is the fact that it will increase the cut-off pointthe salary at which graduates must start to pay back moneyfrom 10,000 a year to 15,000 a year. That will affect my constituents and I want the measure put in place because it is important to them. I have constituents who attend English universities. They study everything from ballet to business management and have an interest in that legislation.
	The prosperity of all the United Kingdom is important to my constituents as well. The Higher Education Bill attempts to bring English university entrants up to the same level as Scottish university entrants. It tries to correct an imbalance that affects the performance of our economy.

Andrew Turner: I do not want to argue with the right hon. Lady about the purpose of the Higher Education Bill, but surely she accepts that English students attend Scottish universities and French students attend English universities. Neither of those examples is an argument for the Parliament of those countries to intervene in the running of Scottish universities.

Helen Liddell: I was not aware that France was part of the United Kingdom. I thought we got that sorted out about 1,000 years ago. The fact that French students come to Scottish and English universities makes me proud to be Scottish, British and European.
	It is no surprise that the people of this country are cynical about politicians because this motion is one of the most cynical moves I have ever seen. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is trapped in this argument. I would be very interested to knowalthough we never will know the answerwhether he was aware that his party leader was going to tar him with the responsibility of not voting on English legislation. It will be interesting to see at the next general election what his constituents think of a Member who has stood up in the House and said that he is determined to be just a part-time Member.

Alex Salmond: For the sake of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm that if she agrees with her Scottish Labour colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee that the Bill will have an adverse impact on Scottish universities, she will vote against it?

Helen Liddell: That is not what they said. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman. The changes that the Bill introduces will go a long way to improving the lot of my constituents. He has to be mature enough about devolution to acknowledge that just because something does not have made in Scotland stamped right through it does not mean that there is something wrong with it. He is changing his position on whether or not he votes on such matters. Were the model that we want to introduce for England replicated in Scotland, it would be a considerable improvement on the lot of Scottish students.
	We need to expose the opportunism of the motion. I think that the House will overwhelmingly show up the cynicism and opportunism of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I am sorry that a party that has a proud tradition of Unionism should have been so easily swayed into the separatist camp.

George Young: It is a pleasure to be the first English Member to participate in the debate. I listened with respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). I hope that she will not find my speech cynical or opportunistic. It is certainly not meant to be a separatist speech or an argument for English nationalism or an English Parliament. I am interested in rebalancing the constitution to take account of the reality of devolution. That is a responsible thing for the House to do.
	Constitutional reform has not been the Government's strongest point. Having promised the country at the last general election that we would have a more democratic House of Lords, we are now moving towards a wholly appointed House of Lords without even waiting for the next Parliament to break that election commitment. Regional assemblies have yet to fire the public's imagination. We recently saw a bungled attempt to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. We heard earlier today of the inexplicable delay in the introduction of a civil service Bill.
	The debate shows that Labour Members are oblivious to the imbalance in our constitution post-devolution. When we recently debated the matter in Westminster Hall, at the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), nearly all the Labour Back Benchers who participated were from Scottish constituencies. The only English Labour MPs present were the Minister and, briefly, his Parliamentary Private Secretaryan indication of a lack of concern by Labour Members about the constitutional imbalance as seen from the English perspective. As we move towards the next election, and as discipline within the Government begins to break down, so the so-called West Lothian question once again raises its head.
	The present constitutional settlement is unfair, unstable and indefensible, and Labour Members seek to portray it through the eyes of Members, but I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that that is the wrong lens. We should look at the issue through the eyes of our constituents and ask whether they are equal. The injustice is simply explained. Until 1998, the people of North-West Hampshire could influence, through their MP, policy in Scotland, for example, on care in the community, and of course the converse was the case. After devolution, my constituents lost that ability, but although they can no longer have a say in whether their Scottish friends pay for personal care in a nursing home, their Scottish friends can influence whether they have to pay for such care. I have to say to Labour Members that it is frankly impossible to defend or explain the current position to my constituents.

Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: In a moment. The position is compounded by the West Lothian question, whereby Scottish Members can impose foundation hospitals on my constituents, but not on their own. As an English MP with English constituents, I find it impossible to defend the status quo.

George Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: No, I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

Angus Robertson: On defending the indefensible, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the participation of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) in the proceedings on the Mersey Tunnels Bill and the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill? What impact do those matters have on Scotland?

George Young: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) defended himself remarkably well in the face of a sustained onslaught from Members on both sides of the House. The proposition that we are debating today is whether Scottish MPs should vote on matters that exclusively concern England and Wales. We want the position to change, and I hope that when it does hon. Members will observe the convention that I am about to promote.
	We got an insight into the Government's response in the debate a fortnight ago. The Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who replied to the debate, said:
	We are not here just as representatives of our constituencies on some sort of delegative or representative basis, but to make judgments and take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK.
	We are manifestly not; I can no longer take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK. He went on to say:
	The arguments are new and opportunistic, and they were not heard when the Conservatives were in government.
	Of course they were notwe did not then have devolution and the Scottish Parliament.

George Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, but does he agree that the answer is not to introduce the dog's breakfast suggested by his Front-Bench spokesmanto try to classify Bills as applying to England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or some combination of the threebut to do as we did when we got furious because the right hon. Gentleman imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We got devolution; surely he should be campaigning for devolution for England.

George Young: I am delighted that I have carried the right hon. Gentleman with me so far, and I hope to carry him for the rest of my argumenta substantial burden.
	In the debate a fortnight ago, the Minister said:
	The Government will not listen to what we consider to be a bogus argument.
	They will not listen to an argument legitimately put forward by Conservative Members and our constituents. Describing the remedy that I favour, which had been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the Minister then said:
	The consequence of his argument would be a breakdown of the power of this Parliament's sovereignty.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 5860WH.]
	That is a bit rich from a member of this Government, who have done more to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament than any other.
	In fairness to Ministers, I have to point out that they have now abandoned one argumentregional assemblies. Throughout the last Parliament we were told that they were the right answer to this issue. The Under-Secretary did not use that argument this afternoon, and it was not used a fortnight ago, because it is not a legitimate argument.
	I make no apologies for bringing to the attention of the House once again the fourth report of the Procedure Committee in the 199899 Session, which contains a section on legislation. The proposition that the Under-Secretary suggested we dismiss as impractical was specifically examined by a Committee of this House. Those who are interested in the subject will find support from the Procedure Committee for an argument that, in the light of devolution, different procedures might be necessary.
	That Committee had a majority of Labour MPs. It anticipated conflict post-devolution and wisely suggested procedures to minimise it. It suggested that we change our rules by convention. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report are worth reading in full. The latter states:
	The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance we believe it is. There may soon be governments of different parties in different parts of the United Kingdom; party balances already differ in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	That is an important conclusion because it concedes the principle, post-devolution, of new procedures for legislation affecting England. Once that point has been conceded, English votes for English Bills is the logical conclusion.
	That is not to bring an end to parliamentary sovereignty. On the contrary, it is to keep parliamentary sovereignty alive by making changes to reflect the fact of devolution. Paragraph 28 argues that representation on Bills dealing with English legislation should be in accordance with party balance in England, not the House.
	The Procedure Committee, which approved that unanimously, included nine Government Members. It also included the Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The principle that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I are putting forward is not just ours. A Committee of the House adopted it. The Committee also dealt with the argument that identifying such Bills would be impossible for the Speaker by dismissing the point in paragraph 27. So, this is not a cynical and opportunistic argument from the Conservative party. It is taking forward a unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee.

David Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that, even given his long parliamentary experience, knowledge of constitutional affairs and service on the Procedure Committee, it will always be possible accurately and unambiguously to classify Bills as so-called English legislation? Does he not recognise that some very complex issues are involved and that such a proposition would be a dog's breakfast in its own right?

George Young: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks not just at the Report but at the evidence given to the Committee. It took evidence from Clerks of the House and Chairmen of Standing Committees, and came to the conclusion to which I have referred:
	We recommend that the provision allowing the Speaker to certify Bills
	should apply to England. After listening to the evidencepresumably from those who thought that such a solution was difficult and from those who thought it was practicalthe Committee reached that unanimous conclusion.
	What did the Government do when they received the report? They just dismissed it. They said:
	If . . . it were possible to identify some bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit this would have for the House.
	The whole debate about the West Lothian question simply did not appear on the Government's radar. They did not so much disagree with the solution; they did not think that there was a problem.
	There is support in my constituency for the sort of solution that the House is debating. I remember seeing an opinion poll showing a majority in Scotland for the proposition that Scottish MPs should not vote on English domestic legislation. So, the proposal that only English and Welsh MPs should vote on Bills covering England and Wales could work perfectly well within the conventions and traditions of Parliament. It is based on precedents, would be accepted as fair in Scotland as well as in England and represents common sense. It would deal with the English question; it would make the Union stronger. The Government are making a serious mistake in their response, and I hope that quite soon it will fall to a different Administration to put right this constitutional injustice.

Rosemary McKenna: I am delighted to take part in this debate, although it is probably the most irrelevant waste of time in this Chamber for a long while. I must ask why and why now? The debate is nothing to do with the subject of the motion. That has been said time and again but bears repeating. This is purely an attempt to highlight the fact that next week my Labour colleagues from Scotland and I will vote on the Higher Education Bill. Of course we will vote on it, and on any other issue that is required to put through our Government's programme, because we are elected as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, with the same rights, the same duties and the same responsibilities as every other Member.

Pete Wishart: The focus of our concern is not the fact that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will vote next Tuesday, but the way they will vote. Why does she not protect and defend the Scottish interest? Everyone in Scottish higher education is of the opinion that tuition fees will be bad for Scotland. Why is she voting against the Scottish interest next week?

Rosemary McKenna: I thought that we were discussing people's right to vote, not higher education. Of course, SNP Members' position is totally unprincipled. We vote on any issue; you pick and choose.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosemary McKenna: Not now. Allow me to make some progress.
	When in 1997 the Labour party promised the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, that we would deliver devolution, we did not say, Ah, but this will mean that your Member of Parliament will be of lesser value than those representing English constituencies. When in 2001 the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth re-elected me, they did not say to me, Ah, but you'll only go down there and vote on certain issuesyou'll not vote on health or on education or on that sort of issue. With my colleagues, I stood for election as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I had every intention of voting on all issues. That is the constitutional position, and it is opportunism in the extreme for the Conservatives to suggest otherwise.

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Lady be a bit more forthcoming about the existing disparity between the responsibilities each of us holds, which she says are equal? I can vote on hospitals in my constituency, whereas she cannot vote on hospitals in hers. In fact, although there is a rational explanation for the difference, there is a disparity in the responsibilities, influence and power that we are able to exercise in legislative matters.

Rosemary McKenna: It was a decision of the House. It was your choice and it is your choice

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.

Rosemary McKenna: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was part of the Opposition party that made a choice, and he chooses not to support the Government's attempts to deliver regional government to the rest of the country.
	In the 1980s and 1990s, I played a role in Scottish local government. I was spending a lot of time visiting this place to represent those interests by 1992, when the then Government imposed a reorganisation of Scottish local government that was unwanted and uncalled for. They did so because we had opposed the poll tax. The previous Government had imposed the poll tax in Scotland despite the fact that they had no majority in Scotland, and the fact that everyone in Scotland opposed it. In addition it was imposed in Scotland a year before the rest of country.

James Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosemary McKenna: No, I will not give way on this matter.
	The following Government detested Scottish local government, which had managed to protect the people of Scotland from the ravages of Thatcherism, an example of which is the miners' strike.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party was also opportunistic in respect of local government reorganisation in Scotland, as shown by its decision to have three local authorities in Ayrshire rather than one all-Ayrshire authority because of itsmistakenbelief that the party could keep control of South Ayrshire council?

Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The then Secretary of State drew a map showing several small blue areas, which the Conservatives thought would deliver some Conservative councils in Scotland.
	I was in this Chamber as a visitor on 17 January 1994almost 10 years agowhen the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the recently retired Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, made the following statement:
	On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject.[Official Report, 17 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 548.]
	They certainly did. There was not a single Tory council left in Scotland.

James Gray: The hon. Lady appears to be arguing persuasively that the people of Scotland did not like having decisions imposed on them by a national Conservative majority. Does she not therefore agree that it would be entirely obnoxious for the people of England to have a decision imposed on us by a Labour majority in the House produced by Scottish votes?

Rosemary McKenna: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I am about to make. A huge majority voted against the Conservatives in Scotland, but the Government have a majority in every part of this country and in all its nations, with the exception of our friends in Northern Ireland.

James Gray: rose

Rosemary McKenna: I shall not take any more interventions, as I want to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to contribute to our debate.
	Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I watched Frost on Sunday, on which the Leader of the Opposition said:
	I would rather lose the vote than ask Peter Duncan to abandon his principles and vote on top-up fees when they do not have them in Scotland!
	Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the same hon. Member who managed to find a principled reason to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill? Perhaps we have a Mersey tunnel in ScotlandI would be happy to have one, as I desperately need something to break the bottleneck on the A80 in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition was not only cynical, but was seen to be cynical. His criticism and pretend outrage, which he does so well, make an increasingly disillusioned electorate even more cynical. However, that may be his intention.
	I shall briefly reiterate a point made by many hon. Members. If it is an anomaly for us to vote on certain legislation, we should remember that Westminster has been riddled with anomalies for years. We should remind ourselves of the position of hereditary peers, mostly Tory, who voted without a mandate on legislation affecting everyone. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

Kevin Brennan: Is not the key point the fact that the governing party put the proposition of devolution for the countries of the United Kingdom to the people of Scotland and Wales in a referendum? Bills then proceeded through both Houses of Parliament and were enactedthat is how devolutionary measures became law. If the Opposition oppose devolution, should they not put their propositions to the country in an election and hold referendums for the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to see what they say? The Opposition are wrong to try to fetter the rights of every hon. Member through the cynical procedure proposed in the motion.

Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
	It will be time to look at voting rights in Parliament when we have devolution for the English regions; a settled and fully operational Northern Ireland Assembly, which we all hope will soon be restored; and a reformed House of Lords. Let us have no more nonsense and time wasting in the Chamber on pointless Opposition debates such as this one. If the House ever decides to look at the reform of Members' voting rights it is likely to command support only if there is thoughtful deliberation on the issue and a constitutional convention or something similar that works through consensus and agreement. Even so, we may decide just to leave things as they are.

David Trimble: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on the courage with which he advanced his argumentI just hope that that does not become self-sacrificing at the time of the next election.
	The West Lothian question is so called because of the exchanges that took place in 1977, but of course the issue is much older than thatit dates back to 1886 and the original Irish home rule Bills. It is worth reflecting on their provisions. Gladstone's first Bill was quite simple: it was designed to remove all the Irish Members from this House. Because of the obvious inequity of that, his second Bill reversed that and all the Irish Members were to be retained. That experiment reached the end of the road with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. A compromise was adopted, and under the new arrangements Northern Ireland's representation was significantly reduced. Conservative Members may like to bear that in mind. They would perhaps be better pursuing the issue of ensuring that the over-representation of Scotland, which was difficult to justify before devolution, and is impossible to justify now, is addressed more rapidly. The Government are slowly moving in that direction, but it is legitimate to argue about the figures.

Helen Liddell: Progress is already being made on that matter. Very shortly, new boundaries that will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members from 72 to 59 will be in place.

David Trimble: I appreciate that progress is being madeI merely make the point that Conservative Members would do better to pursue that issue than one that is not valid.

James Gray: The Scots are moving towards parity with England, but why should they have that when they have their own Parliament? There should be far fewer than 59 Members here in Westminster.

David Trimble: That is precisely my point. It is a valid issue, unlike the issue that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pursuing.
	We have heard good arguments, which I will not repeat, about the equality of Members, problems regarding differential majorities on different issues, and the difficulty of distinguishing such issues. With all due respect to the Procedure Committee, I doubt whether it is possible to make such distinctions, given that issues that appear to be exclusively Scottish or English will have consequential effects elsewhere, even if only economic and financial.

Shona McIsaac: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the debate pack produced by the Library, which confirms his remarks when it states:
	In practice there is almost no English-only legislation at allbills apply either to the UK, Great Britain or England and Wales together.

David Trimble: I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing the point that I am trying to make. It is probably impossible to make such distinctions.
	The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said that power devolved is power retained, as did the Minister when he emphasised sovereignty. In the present devolution set-up, it is a mistake to overemphasise the extent to which the devolved Administrations have freedom in the choices that they make. Yes, devolution makes them more accessible and gives them the power to make adjustments, but the extent to which they can do so is significantly limited, because the key decisionsthose on taxation and expenditureare still made here. In that context, we cannot allow parts of the country to be deprived of equal representation. That is a simple, basic point. There may be anomalies elsewhere, but expenditure of taxation is so fundamental to government that there must be equal representation for all parts of the country.
	One must also bear in mind the operation of the block grant. Some of the earlier comments about the Barnett formula missed the point that financial arrangements for the devolved regions are based on public expenditure for England and Wales. Government policy in England and Wales determines the total block grant, which reflects those expenditure decisions. Government policies are therefore crucial for Members from Scotland, Wales andif devolution occurs againNorthern Ireland, because they determine the total block grant, and that point has certain consequences.
	As I have said, there is scope for local discretion, but it is limited. The Scottish Parliament has said that it will not follow Government policy on tuition fees. That choice is open to it, but it will have to compensate the Scottish universities. How long will that be possible? I know that the Scottish Parliament is better endowed financially than we were in the Northern Ireland Administration. We examined student finance in 2001 and I am happy to say that we decided to reintroduce grants. The Higher Education Bill, which comes before the House next week, will do for England and Wales what we did for Northern Ireland, and I am glad to see that the Government are following our example.
	The Northern Ireland Administration could not go as far as the Scottish Parliament because we could not finance the policy, and the extent to which we could vary our block grant was limited. The Scottish Parliament has a bit more elbow room, but I am not sure how long it can maintain that position. The fact that the Scottish Parliament has taken that decision and is likely to sustain it for the next few weeks or monthsor perhaps even for a year or twocannot be used to justify depriving people of the opportunity to participate in something that is likely to affect them.
	While economic powers on taxation and public expenditure are concentrated in Westminster, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory. The essential power to determine financing rests here and is reinforced by the joint ministerial committees, which are not mentioned very much but which are significant tools used by Whitehall to ensure close co-ordination of policy across the United Kingdom.
	The point is further reinforced by the fact that people's expectations in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are determined by Government policies. Public opinion generated significant pressure in Northern Ireland, although things may be different in Scotland. Public opinion was generated by policy that was originally introduced in England and Wales, and much of the pressure on us was to read across policies as quickly as possible. The distinctions that have been drawn about those matters are quite wrong.

Eric Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Trimble: I am sorry, but I shall not take any more interventions because I no longer get extra minutes for them and my time is running down.
	A further, simple point is that we are all elected to this Parliament, which has particular powers. We are elected not to be regional or parochial, but to use our judgment as best we can on all the issues that come before us. Even if a matter relates exclusively to part of England, I sometimes feel that I can make a contribution and improve the quality of decision making both for the whole of the United Kingdom and for particular parts of it.
	The Conservative motion is completely misconceived. It is not even in the interests of the Conservative party to pursue the issue, because the way in which it is being addressed will simply reinforce the common view of Conservatism in Scotland, which is unhealthy for the Union and the United Kingdom.
	It would be difficult for Ulster Unionist Members not to support a Government amendment that
	opposes any step that would undermine the Union.
	I began by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and I shall end by congratulating the Government on being firmly Unionist today. I hope that they will repeat the experience tomorrow, and in the days that follow.

John Robertson: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
	The Opposition have recently worked themselves up into a self-righteous frenzy about the voting rights of hon. Members north of the border. First, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) secured an Adjournment debate in which he condemned as outrageous my decision to go through the Lobby, and today, his leader is not using the valuable tool of an Opposition day to discuss an issue of great national importance.
	The choice of subject constitutes another example of English nationalism, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention. The Tories are aided and abetted by some of their friends north of the border. Inconsistencies are revealed when we consider the different standards that the Tories apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. They have mentioned foundation hospitals and tuition fees, neither of which applies to Scotland. However, they do not apply in Northern Ireland either, yet Ulster Members have not been subjected to the same criticism as Scottish Members.
	If hon. Members are to vote only on subjects that affect their constituencies, the logical conclusion is that no London Member should vote on transport issues, which are now the responsibility of the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly. Why did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and twice on foundation hospitals? The Tories are hypocritical and opportunistic.
	It is disappointing that Conservative Members take such a simplistic approach to the constitution. Some parts of Bills apply to the United Kingdom and others only to England and Wales.

James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: I shallalthough in his Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman did not.

James Gray: The record will show that my speech was excessively long because I gave way so often. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read Hansard. However, I am grateful to him for giving way to me.
	Why should Scottish Members of Parliament come to England to vote against foxhunting in England when English Members of Parliament have no say on foxhunting in Scotland?

John Robertson: I know that foxhunting is very important to the hon. Gentleman, but I have the same voting rights as him. I vote on the same legislation as he does. [Interruption.] I can and will vote on foxhunting.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: I am sorry, but I want to move on. I shall give way later.
	Parts of the Higher Education Bill apply to Scotland. The introduction of variable fees will affect Scotland. I doubt whether I shall be able to get in during the debate next week, so I want to put it on the record that Scottish universities are better funded now. The rate of the increase in funding in future will mean that they are 15 to 16 per cent. better funded. They will still be given extra moneys under the current system until 200910, when the position will be re-examined. That will be roughly on a par with what the variable fees will do in England, so there will not be such a disparity between Scotland and England as some hon. Members have implied. My great concern is the perception that Scottish students may be put at a slight disadvantage in that the wages in English universities might be higher than in Scotland. That problem must be looked at, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to do such things. That is what devolution was all about: Scotland should examine matters that pertain to Scotland, and we examine matters that pertain to the United Kingdom.
	Hon. Members have mentioned how important are the finances of the UK

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman asked how many measures he could no longer vote on. Well, he cannot vote on hospitals, schools or most of the domestic agenda in his own constituency, but he can vote on hospitals, schools and most of the domestic agenda in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Surely that is absurd.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his input, but he is backing up exactly what I said. I cannot vote on those things and neither can he, so we are in exactly the same boat when it comes to voting on legislation. I realise that that is a slightly negative way of looking at it, but we all vote on the same legislation. The hon. Gentleman tells me that I cannot vote on some thingsbut that is because those matters are taken care of in Scotland.

Alan Duncan: Fair pointbut does the hon. Gentleman not find it slightly offensive to the basic principles of democratic conduct that when he exercises his right to vote as a UK Member of Parliament, he may be doing so on matters that do not in any way affect his constituents, but do affect mine?

John Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, he has not listened to the contributions of othersparticularly that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who spoke for the Liberal Democratsabout the finances of the country. Every Bill that passes through the House has a financial effect on the UK. In an excellent contribution, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reiterated that point. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) can fail to grasp that UK finances have an effect on Scotland and the Scottish people.

James Gray: rose

John Robertson: I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman, which is more generous than he was in Westminster Hall.

George Young: rose

John Robertson: I want to move on a bit.
	The Opposition parties have one thing in common: they want to become the Government, which is perfectly fair. However, they should do that through politics and the ballot box, not by trying to move the goalposts sideways and reinvent what politics is all about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said in Westminster Hall:
	I wonder whether we would be having this debate today if we had a Conservative Government with a large number of Conservative Members in Scotland. I suspect not.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 44WH.]
	I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We definitely would not have had today's debate if the Conservative party had maintained the sort of support that it had in the past. It is up to Conservative Members to ask themselves why they do not receive support north of the border.
	I greatly admire the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale: he and I agree on many things, but not on this. I also have to tell him that I hope he loses his seat in the next general election[Hon. Members: Ah.] Because of the boundary changes, I know that it will become a Labour seat. We shall have another Labour MP in Scotland. I noticed a wonderful Freudian slip in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which summed up the Conservative party well. He said that his hands were buried in the sand. I know that he meant to say heads, but hands was what he said. It is a Freudian slip, because that is exactly where they were when he was writing his speechburied in the sand.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) told mehe is away now, putting on his monkey suit for a dinner tonightthe hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale was being made a patsy. I can tell hon. Members that that term means the same as fall guy. The Leader of the Opposition set the hon. Gentleman up with this debate, which has no purpose other than to allow Scots to have a go at each other, and Labour Members to have a go at the Opposition. It has been fun, and I have enjoyed it, but the debate has been a misuse of parliamentary time.
	My hon. Friend the Minister made the important point that this is a constitutional issue. If Conservative Front-Bench Members had their way, the Union would be split up. I think of the Conservative party these days as the English national party, and its members will be eagerly abetted by the Scottish National partywhom we call the Tartan Tories. They are the same, and I am sure that we will see that when the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) makes his contribution. His conservative tendencies will be evident as he sets out his own form of nationalism. There is no doubt that we will have some fun with that.
	The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that Conservative Members were looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I can tell him that they have not even taken off the lens cap. They are not even looking into the abyss: they have no clue what they are looking at. That is another problem, because we are talking about what is good for Scotland and for the British people. The Opposition want to get rid of Scottish MPs, who they think have nothing to contribute. However, I believe that the Scots have contributed more than a little to the history of the House, and I like to think that some of us will do a lot more in the years to come.
	In all seriousness, the debate has a sad aspectthe increase in nationalism in this country. We all know what nationalism has done throughout the world. It does nothing to enhance politics. We know the effects of bigotry, and this country would be in a worse state if we were to give in to it. I urge Opposition Members to join me in supporting the Union in the Lobby tonight.

Andrew Rosindell: First and foremost, I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I also represent an English constituency. It is vital that all hon. Members remember that our duty is to govern the country in an equal and fair manner. As a Conservative and Unionist, I will not support any proposal that would undermine the nation's unity in any way.
	I urge all hon. Members, especially those who have complained about so-called English nationalism, to accept that the constitutional mess sadly created by this Government's policies assists those who want to create the divisions in our country that the vast majority of hon. Members oppose. Hon. Members of all parties must ensure that our policies and ideas are formed in the knowledge that our responsibility is to govern all British people, in the whole of the country. It is wrong that any legislation should benefit one part of the UK preferentially.

Christopher Leslie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am confused: is he supporting the motion or not? I hope that he will clarify that. He believes that our constitution is in a mess, but Opposition Front-Bench Members have saidtoday, at any ratethat they support the devolution settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman support it?

Andrew Rosindell: I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That Union must be based on fair and equal constitutional government across the kingdom. The present system is not fair to the whole of the UK. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was correct to say that, if a Scottish Parliament has devolved powers, the only logical conclusion is that England should have a Parliament as well. Let me make it clear to all hon. Members, however, that I do not support the idea of an English Parliament like the Scottish Parliament that has been created. I should like to see one electoral system and one general election held on the same day for the whole United Kingdom. The issue would then be about which matters we, as English, Scottish or Welsh MPs, thought should be devolved, so that we could separate to decide on them. It is completely wrong that Romford has one Member of Parliament but that a Scottish or Welsh constituency has a Member of Parliament here at Westminster plus a Member of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. That is the complete mess brought about by the current constitutional arrangement.
	I honestly believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I have had many discussions on a number of issues, is committed to the Union, as I am. Many of the personalised attacks that have been made this afternoon on my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) are unfair, because he has simply tried to raise a constitutional anomaly which, if we are not careful, will end up dividing our country far more than at present.

Rosemary McKenna: If the hon. Gentleman believes that his constituents are disadvantaged because we have Members of the Scottish Parliament, what steps is he taking to support the Government's attempt to provide regional government in England, which would give his constituents exactly the same privileges as we have?

Andrew Rosindell: When the hon. Lady talks of regional government, she insults everyone in England. England, no less than Scotland, is a nation. To condemn English nationalism, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) did earlier, is divisive. I detest any policy that is likely to divide our country further. I entered Parliament, and joined the Conservative and Unionist party, first and foremost because I believe in this countrythe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are in a constitutional mess, and we must return to the real issue of how to resolve that problem.
	I reiterate that we must have a fair and equal system across the country. We do not need to create more politicians, as we have done with the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We need only one MP per constituency, and we could then divide up on devolved issues. I would have no problem if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sat in an Edinburgh Parliament as the hon. Member for Stirling to deal with education, health or local government, as long as I could also sit in an English Parliament to do the same. What is wrong is that we have two MPs for Stirling, one called an MSP and one, the hon. Lady present today, sitting in Westminster. We must have one Parliament, one electoral system and one general electiona simple system that is fair and equal for all people throughout the United Kingdom.

Anne McGuire: I know from our discussions how committed the hon. Gentleman is to the Union, and I remember that he tried to become a Scottish Member of this Parliament when he stood as the candidate for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party in Glasgow, Provan. As he will remember, he indulged in a fairly interesting election campaign.
	Will the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to leave it there?

Andrew Rosindell: I am delighted that the Minister remembered that I was first a candidate in Glasgow, Provan. I was proud to stand for that constituency, which was a long way from home. I admit that it was a place that I knew little about, but it was none the less part of my country. I stood as a Conservative and Unionist candidate at a time when many members of my party were willing to ditch the word Unionist. I shall never do that.
	I urge the Minister: please, let us not bury our heads in the sand. Many people in England are increasingly angry and hurt by the current situation. We need to find a permanent resolution to this constitutional anomaly.

David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman said that he entered Parliament to support the unity of the United Kingdom. He became a Member only two and a half years ago, in 2001, so can he understand that those of us who entered the House in 1979, and suffered 18 years of opposition and opposed the policies of the Conservative Government, which caused tremendous harm and hardship to Scots and Scotland, do not have great sympathy for the situation of the hon. Gentleman and his party? Can he also understand that those policies and that Conservative Government presented a far bigger threat to the Union

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer and time is running out.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was making. As a United Kingdom MP, I believe that my constituents and people in England must accept the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament. Sometimes things work out the other way around.
	First and foremost, I am a United Kingdom MP and although, in my view, the present situation does not benefit my constituents, I accept that we are one nation. Several countries make up the United Kingdom but we are one people and one nation, and any Member of Parliament or any individual who undermines the Union damages the future of our nation.
	The West Lothian question is not new. There are many other anomalies. We govern the British overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, yet their people have no vote in the House. I should like this place to be truly the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all British people should be represented here, while deciding for themselves on locally devolved issueswhether in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the House of Assembly of Gibraltar. We must always be a United Kingdom Parliament, however, governing all British people equally throughout the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and the territories that remain British and for which we are responsible.
	I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, who is tackling a very difficult situation for our country. I hope that hon. Members will stop personalising the issue and realise that there is a serious constitutional anomaly. We should work as a United Kingdom Parliament to solve the problem in the long term. If we politicise itas has happened to a great extent in the debatewe shall be further divided and we shall further undermine the unity of our country. We shall be doing the greatest disservice that Members of Parliament could ever do to the United Kingdom.

Mark Lazarowicz: I want to bring the debate back from the somewhat intriguing vision of an imperial Parliament, covering all the parts of the globe that are still coloured red, to the practicalities of the Conservative proposals.

Malcolm Savidge: rose

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a little while.
	The practical difficulties cannot simply be laughed off as the Conservatives have tried to do today. Members on both sides of the Chamber have given examples that show how the proposals would not work in a practical sense. I want to dwell on two of those in more detail and take some of the lessons that need to be drawn from them.
	First, the Higher Education Bill, which comes to the House next week, has been mentioned. Clauses on tuition fees will not be applicable to Scotland, but they have implications for Scotland. Large parts of the Bill will be directly applicable to Scotland as well. Therefore, clearly, that cannot be regarded as an English-only measure.
	Last year's legislation on foundation hospitals was applicable only to England, although it clearly had UK-wide implications, including many sections that applied to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. A couple of years ago a number of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber served with me on the Standing Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill. That contained provisions some of which applied to the UK as a whole, some of which applied only to England and Wales, some of which applied only to Scotland and some of which applied only to Northern Ireland.
	The consequence of the Conservatives' proposals would be to have what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) so graphically described as a hokey-kokey, with Members from different parts of the UK having to run into the Chamber, vote on those provisions affecting only their areas, then leave again as the English Members came in for their bits and went out again to be replaced by the Northern Ireland Members. There would be no way to have any serious debate of broad issues of principle.
	At what stages in the process would the voting ban on Scottish Members, and perhaps in due course Northern Irish and Welsh Members, apply? Would it just be on Report, when we deal with specific amendments and clauses? Or would it apply to Standing Committees as well? Would it apply to Second and Third Readings, when we are voting on proposals as a whole? Would it apply just to those measures that are exclusively English, of which there are hardly any? Or would it apply to those measures where the bulk of a Bill applies to England only, but where there are certain important Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish consequences as well? How would that new system work?
	Would we have two-, three-, or four-stemmed Second Reading debates, in which we voted for the Scottish bits, the Northern Irish bits, the Welsh bits and the English or UK bits? What should we do if a measure received Second Reading approval for the English bits, but not the Scottish or Welsh bits? How should we resolve the differences? Clearly, it is a recipe for constitutional chaos and could not be managed meaningfully within this Chamber.
	The only arrangement that would be even more unworkable is that which I understand is favoured by the Scottish National party. The present proposal at least has some clarity, in that measures that were applicable only to England would not be ones on which Scottish Members could vote. The Scottish National party would replace that with a pick-and-mix system under which a Scottish Member could choose the issues on which he or she wanted to vote. The reality is that there is hardly any issue that one could not, if one wished, suggest had some implications for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies.

Malcolm Savidge: The Mersey tunnel.

Mark Lazarowicz: In that case it might be hard to see a Scottish connection. However, for example, the London underground might be thought of as a matter for debate simply by London Members, but London is the capital of the UK, and what happens to transport in my constituents' capital city is of interest to them. Hardly any measure could be seen to have no implications for Scotland.

James Gray: What possible relevance does fox hunting in England have to people in Edinburgh, North and Leith?

George Foulkes: The foxes go over the border.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am happy to accept that there is a theoretical anomaly in the position that the hon. Gentleman describes, but the question is this: what is the price of trying to work out a system to resolve that anomaly? The result of the solution to the dilemma that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be to undermine the entire way in which the Executive relates to the legislature in this Chamber. As a consequence of the Conservatives' proposals, there would be occasions when the Executive chosen by the majority in the House could not command a majority for its legislation. In the long run, we would end up in a situation in which we had the official Government, the Executive, and on some measures a shadow Cabinet, the shadow Government, acting as if it were a semi-detached Government with some status in this Chamber. Obviously, that would be unsustainable.
	In the long run, the only outcome would be that there would be pressure to set up an English Parliament with powers relating to many matters that are relevant to England only. Like many of my hon. Friends, I do not necessarily oppose that proposition, but I suspect that many hon. Members with English constituencies would much prefer to have a federal system within England instead of an English Parliament that would inevitably be much more dominated by the south-east and London. We could discuss that subject in due course, but it seems to me that if we were to set up an English Parliament, that should be done by choice and as a result of debate on that issue, as opposed to being brought in through the back door by a constitutional mechanism that would bring chaos to the workings of the House if it were ever put into effect.
	We should ask ourselves, why are we being invited to go down that road today? Is there really great public or parliamentary demand for such a change? I am not aware of any public tumult in England demanding such a change, although there may well be if the Tories keep trying to whip up anti-Scottish feelings, as some of them want to do.

Peter Duncan: rose

Mark Lazarowicz: I will give way in a second.
	If there had been a great deal of concern within Parliament, we might have seen slightly more Conservative MPs from England in the Chamber today. There certainly does not seem to be any major concern about the issue on their side, even though it is their debate.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman asks how widespread this concern is. He knows that there is majority support for our proposals among the wider electorate in Scotland. They know that devolution, to be stable, needs to work properly, and to work properly needs to be stable. Why is he refusing to accept that?

Mark Lazarowicz: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I have not had a vast influx of constituents demanding such a change. In fact, not one has expressed that view, and I should be interested to know how many hon. Members have been contacted by anyone demanding such a change.
	As hon. Members on both sides of the House well know, the Conservatives are suggesting this measure today purely because it is seen as a good piece of political opportunism to take advantage of one or two slight difficulties with the majority on the Government side. [Interruption.] Everyone knows that. It is for Oppositions to cause embarrassment to Governments from time to time and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise, but the Conservatives really should consider the forces that they are in danger of unleashing in political debate in this country. It is fair for them to ask the questions that they are asking today, and it would be fair to develop a debate on them over a period, but to put it bluntly, the way in which these issues are being raised today and have been raised previously, even though they have been raised by a Member from a Scottish constituency, is designed to start whipping up anti-Scottish feeling and resentment among the electorate in England. That is what it is about.
	I have always been one of those who thought that separation of Scotland from England would only be likely to come about not because a majority in Scotland wanted it, but if politicians in England started playing an anti-Scottish card for short-term popularity. That is what the Conservatives are in danger of doing by pursuing the line they are taking today, and which they took in a recent Westminster Hall debate.
	It is precisely because I want the Union between Scotland and England to survive and prosper, strengthened by devolution, that I hope that the House will reject the Conservative motion today. I urge all those in the House, on whichever side of it they sit, who do not want to see separation between England and Scotland, who do not want to see border guards at Berwick and customs examinations at Carlisle[Interruption.] I do not expect support from Scottish National party Members today. I urge all those who do not want to see that separation, including those Conservative Members who realise the danger of the road on which they are treadingthere must surely be someto support the Government amendment tonight.

Pete Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very surprised to be called so late in the debate, and I will be brief.
	Like the Conservatives, I want to find a solution to the West Lothian question, but I want a solution that is fair to England and fair to Scotland, too. What the Conservatives are suggestingthat Scottish Members stay away from the vote next weekwill, indeed, be fair to England, but it mostly definitely will not be fair to Scotland because, if the Bill goes ahead, it will lose out quite significantly: up to 100 million of funding. We would experience a decrease in staff and resources over the year, and our effective advantage would then be compromised.
	The Conservatives believe that the devolution settlement is some sort of perfect arrangement, whereby the Scottish Parliament takes its decisions, determines its own agenda and policies and is then locked in some sort of vacuum, impervious to any decision that is taken down here in the larger, Big Brother Housebut the devolution settlement is far from perfect. As the settlement currently stands, the Scottish Parliament is very much only a pocket-money Parliament. We are still very vulnerable to decisions taken down here.
	It is in every Scottish Member's interests to ensure that Scotland's interests are protected and defended. That should be the sole priority of Scottish Members in the House. Those in Scottish Labour know that, and they have a solution to the West Lothian question. It is quite simply that the Scottish Parliament should do as the Big Brother UK Parliament should do, too. Even if tuition fees are bad for Scotland, their solution is quite simple: the Scottish Parliament should simply adopt tuition fees as a policy tooso much for internal democracy, so much decision making, so much for separate solutions for separate legislatures and so much for their commitment to devolution.
	Labour Members say that there is a problem with jumping in and out of legislation. Well, that is not a big deal; it is what we have been doing for the past 10 years. If the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) does not want to do the hokey-cokey, we will provide the information for him and let him know which measures will be voted on. If that is too much of a big deal for him, why does he not get the underemployed Scotland Office to give him a brief on the exceptions that are confined to Scotland? In that way, he would no longer have to play that game and do the hokey-cokey.
	There is a solution: give Scotland financial responsibility and fiscal autonomy, and the Barnett formula immediately goes. Better stillgive Scotland independence and England, too. In that way, the Lobby fodder of Scottish MPs will not be needed to get English legislation through.

Alan Duncan: This has been a good-natured debate, which has generated some excited interest. That is down to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan)he is so often mistaken for my brotherwho initiated the debate and who in what he bravely said wants to define a procedure for the House that embraces equity, fairness and consistency.
	I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me a minor diversion, just to pay tribute to the originator of the entire issue: the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)or for West Lothian, as he will perhaps be better remembered. He and I first encountered each other on this very issue 25 years ago. Indeed, when devolution referendums took place at the end of the Callaghan Government, the hon. Gentleman was a champion of the issue. As the president of the Oxford union, I oversaw a televised debate, and the hon. Gentleman pulled out at the very last minute. He said that the BBC was behaving badly and that, because there was a 40 per cent. threshold, staying away was equivalent to voting no. In his normal, logical way he became very angry, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) replaced himin a pretty ghastly brown suit, but that is by the by.
	The hon. Gentleman will not mind if I tell the House that, 25 years later, he had the good grace to confess that the real reason that he pulled out was that those in the vote no campaign decided, at the very last minute, that they did not want to parade before the cameras someone who might be thought to be an Etonian toff. Well, I can assure him that we see him not as a toff, but as the Father of the House and the originating and enduring champion of the issue that we are debating today.
	All new constitutional arrangements create new problems. As Lord Lawson said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is bit like simplifying taxationit always makes it more complicated. What devolution has done is to create some new complications. It is all about who has power over what, and by what right. Scotland wanted power over its own affairs in some areas separate from the House, and it has now got it. But we now have the classic and almost insoluble overlap and inconsistency of the legislative power that has followed.
	There are two sides to the West Lothian questionperhaps doubly galling for Scottish MPs. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. The situation is doubly irritating because in addition to English MPs being unable to vote on Scottish matters, Scottish MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. They can no longer vote on many matters that affect their constituents because they are devolved matters.

Malcolm Savidge: rose

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? We are short of time and I know that the Minister wants a good 10 minutes to speak, so I hope that he will accept my apologies.
	Let me address several worries that have arisen during the debate, one of which is very odd. The first concern is that addressing the conundrum would somehow create two-tier MPs. However, we have that situation at present to a large extent. There is already an imbalance, and our proposal is designed to rectify that in several respects. Scottish MPs have more authority over English affairs than English MPsand Scottish MPs, to some extenthave over Scottish affairs. That inconsistency requires rebalancing. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, spotted the problem 25 years ago. He said:
	it would be wrong for those of us from Scotland to . . . interfere in English domestic affairs after
	devolution
	has been reached.[Official Report, 1 February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 457.]
	Devolution has been reached and the inconsistency has now arisen.
	In response to a further objection that was raised, I argue that the proposal before us today would not jeopardise the integrity of the United Kingdomit might do the opposite. It would establish a practice that would be more likely to secure that integrity and that would stabilise, rather than complicate, our procedures.
	We live with having Scottish Members in the Cabinet, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Chancellor is Scottish and we had a Scottish Foreign Secretary for some time. They have occupied their posts for the whole United Kingdomindeed, the Chancellor's ever-growing taxes affect Scotland as much as England and Wales. We can live with that, but if we consider the way in which hon. Members vote on specific measures, there is inconsistency. If it is not addressed, there will be renewed pressure for an English Parliament and, thus, perhaps further fragmentation of the United Kingdom.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) persuasively argued, recent events have sown the seeds of English and Welsh discontent more deeply. Measures for England have been enacted that could not have been enacted without the support of Scottish Members. However, as if to add insult to injury, the very same measures have been rejected in Scotland. Indeed, the same Scottish Members would have rejected the measures for Scotland if they had possessed a vote. The situation rubs our noses in it. It is as if Scottish Members are saying, We're not going to have it ourselves, but we're going to force it on you, and, worse, demanding the right to do the opposite in England to that which they would choose to do in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
	Hon. Members mentioned the poll tax, but there was no devolution at the time. Although devolution occurred later, we had the poll tax in England, too.
	Let me canter through the alternatives. The Liberal Democrats propose a federal United Kingdom, but Conservative Members do not support that. Equally, we do not support the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. Complete Scottish independence has been suggested. We could have what might be called the Rifkind option of a double majority. Under that option, the support of the majority of English Members and the majority of the whole HouseScottish Members would thus be allowed to votewould be required before any measure could pass.
	We could establish an English Grand Committee or have English-only days. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggested during a Westminster Hall debate that Scottish Members could also make up the Scottish Parliament, which would give them a dual mandate and introduce a measure of consistency to parliamentary conduct. We could have a voluntary convention, but as the Government have trampled over many such conventions, I doubt that that would last. The proposal in the motion is that the Speaker should certify the category into which Bills should fall. That might help my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale with any vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, especially if such a Division took place after dinner.
	The situation could be serious if we fail to address the problem. [Interruption.] Perhaps even the Scottish nationalists would listen to this point because it is important and I want to admit it to the Minister. It would be really serious if the UK Government commanded an overall majority only with the help of Scottish Members of Parliament. Without the practice we advocate, and without it being established now as the way to conduct our business, a future Government in such a challenging arithmetical predicament could find its entire legitimacy questioned.
	Our proposal would remove the indignation of being told what to do by a minority of MPs who are unaffected by their actions. It is designed to introduce greater stability to procedures that are rubbing along unhappily and causing growing indignation. It would draw the sting of those complaints and build a practice that addresses the West Lothian question and introduces a new force for stability and fairness in the way in which we conduct our affairs.

Christopher Leslie: Although the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) conducted his contribution in a calm manner, the Conservative motion is another example of the brazen opportunism that guides the tunnel visionperhaps through the Mersey tunnel as my hon. Friends have suggestedof Tory policy under their latest leader.
	Let us be clear about the principle on which this Parliament is based and should be based in future. In the House, every Member of Parliament is equal. All Members can speak on all subjects. The suggestion to the contrary is divisive and dangerous, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Having equality for Members of Parliament at the centre is symbolic of our aspiration for all corners of the United Kingdom to be treated equally. It is an essential unifying part of our country. To say that one class of Member of Parliament must only vote on one class of issue is the slippery slope down which I doubt the Opposition truly want to go in the unlikely event that they ever get into government again.

David Burnside: In promoting the most pro-Union of policies that has ever been heard from a party that traditionally is not regarded as a pro-Union party, does the Minister agree that it is time he put up candidates in all parts of the United Kingdom, won more pro-Union Labour seats in Northern Ireland and separated himself from the separatist nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party?

Christopher Leslie: Clearly a political party can choose to stand wherever it wishes. The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed with his historic allies, the Conservative party, whom he feels unable to support tonight. I understand that he will side with Her Majesty's Government. In that, he is most welcome. Although some hon. Members mentioned their worries about the constitutional symmetry across the country, it is not simply a matter for Scotland, but is relevant to other parts of the country as well. The West Lothian question is just as much a west Belfast question. If we need to correct something for Scotland, which we do not, we also need to address it in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish Members of Parliament frequently voted on non-Northern Ireland business when the Assembly was up and functioning. Curiously, there was no objection from the Conservatives at the time. I suspect that their constitutional outrage is convenient and flexible, appearing only when they want it to.
	Let us be honest about what we are discussing. The debate is little more than a cynical tactic aimed at the Higher Education Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith explained. It does not matter to the Conservatives that it affects Scotland, in both policy and financial terms. It is irrelevant to the Tories that Scottish Members of Parliament have a legitimate Scottish interest. If it affects UK revenue and UK expenditure, of course it is a UK concern. In trying to drive a wedge into the Bill, the Opposition have raised the red herring of the West Lothian question.
	Let us consider the simple answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament backed devolution to Scotland. The UK Parliament chose to devolve some of its powers. Parliament is content, and English Members of Parliament are content, to live with devolution. We opted, of our own free will, to create the current devolution settlement. There is no question of any unwanted imposition from Scotland on the rest of the country, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) seemed to suggest. That is the answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament, by an overwhelming majority, voted for, and continue to support, devolution to Scotland and the present constitutional settlement. The English people, too, supported Labour's manifesto at the last two general elections and are content with the constitutional settlement.
	As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory and the Conservatives have completely misconceived the matter. He spoke about the issue of whether devolution removes the need for special representation by Scotland here at Westminster. The boundary commission for Scotland is reviewing the number of constituencies in Scotland to achieve parity throughout the United Kingdom.
	The UK Parliament retains the right to legislate on devolved matters and it retains overall sovereignty, so the West Lothian question is a red herring. In arguing their case, Conservative Members have stumbled into a terrible tangle of double standards, and there is an awful lot of Tory inconsistency. One almost has to admire the sheer effrontery and confected outrage in the arguments of Conservative Members. The Leader of the Opposition now says with unblinking gravitas that, as a point of high principle, he has instructed that not a single one of his Scottish MPs will be allowed to take part in the proceedings on the Higher Education Bill. He is withdrawing the massed ranks of his Scottish forces, all one of themwhat a sweeping but completely transparent gesture.
	Rather inconveniently, however, it appears that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times on non-Scottish-specific business, including, I reiterate, the Mersey Tunnels Bill. Yet the Conservatives have the cheek to say in their motion that
	it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation.
	I suspect that it is not his practice, but perhaps he means that it will now be his practice.
	There is a lot of Tory inconsistency here. What about the poll tax? It was imposed on Scotland when the vast majority of MPs there objected. The Tories had no qualms then. Where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) said, was the West Lothian question when the Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister responsible for local government, was the begetter of, and driving force behind, the poll tax? When recently asked about the poll tax, the Leader of the Opposition said that
	it was a bold and brave experiment.
	That was clearly not the view of people in Scotland.
	When we look at the list of English Conservative Front Benchers, we see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, represents an English, not a Welsh, constituency. To be fair, on a clear day, from the top of a hill, with a pair of binoculars, one can probably just about see into Wales from his constituency, so that is all right. The Tories are completely inconsistent.
	Let us look at the array of alternatives suggested by the Conservatives. Some Members have said that we have a constitutional mess, and others that they support devolution. I suspect that the Conservatives' gut instinct is to scrap devolution altogether, and if that is the case, why do they not just come out and say so? They also want to force the Speaker to rip apart Bills

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 142, Noes 377.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved:
	That this House believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

National Lottery

That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

HONOURS SYSTEM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Russell Brown: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate after a third attempt. In fact, when I first applied for the debate prior to the Christmas recess, I was informed by the Table Office that any questions on the honours system were answered by the Prime Minister and that, because my right hon. Friend does not reply to Adjournment debates, it would be impossible for me to secure such a debate. However, I raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions and was relieved to hear that he was of a similar frame of mind to myself and that a Cabinet Office Minister could reply. I am more than delighted to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) in his place this evening to do just that.
	For some considerable time I have been extremely anxious about an apparent lack of transparency and openness in our honours system, and I am sure that other hon. Members and the public as a whole are concerned when some people receive honours for one reason or another, but many others in our communities appear to miss outdespite having as good as, if not a stronger, case for recognition of their achievements.
	During December The Sunday Times ran an article about the leaking of a secret document by a Whitehall whistleblower. Apparently, according to the article, the minutes of the main honours committee revealed
	the government's obsession with spin and rewarding Labour sympathisers.
	Does not the secrecy of the system lend itself to such an accusation, irrespective of which Government are in power?
	Honours for purely party-political services were discontinued in 1966, but that policy was reversed under the premierships of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, and John Major continued the policy of awarding political honours. However, it would be wrong to say that no attempts have been made in the past to address problems within the system. In fact, as long ago as the premiership of Lloyd George, and following scandals about honours being bought, we saw the establishment of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in 1923. Following the setting up of a royal commission a year earlier to examine the procedures for the award of honours, its report eventually led to the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Strangely, there have been no prosecutions under that Act.
	There have also been some recent and welcome improvements. In 1998, the Committee on Standards in Public Life under Lord Neill recommended that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee should be renamed the Honours Scrutiny Committee and that the committee should be asked to scrutinise every case where a nominee for an honour of CBE or above had directly or indirectly donated 5,000 or more to a political party during the preceding five years. The committee should be satisfied that the donation had made no contribution to the nomination for an honour. A further review in 2001, commissioned by Sir Richard Wilson, looked at how the nominations system had developed over the 1990s. The dedicated nominations unit was established and a standard nomination form was produced.
	It is the apparent lack of transparency in the honours system and the continuing under-recognition of the unsung heroes in our local communities on which I wish to concentrate my brief comments. Evidence suggests that about 30,000 live nominations are currently within the system. An average of 6,000 new nominations come in annually, and about the same number of unsuccessful nominations are taken off the list in order to keep it manageable.
	My first point is that anyone making a nomination has no idea whether it is still being consideredunless, of course, the individual that they nominated receives an honour. To the best of my knowledge, no notification is given to those who have taken the time and the effort to submit a nomination. Bearing in mind that for the majority of applications it can take in excess of 18 months before an outcome is determined, I believe that notification of an unsuccessful application should be given. I suggest that, when the decision is made to remove a person's name from the list, all the people who supported the nomination should be informed of the decision not to progress it further. Leaving people in ignorance is no longer an option.
	Much media attention was centred on the refusal by the poet Benjamin Zepheniah to accept an OBE. However, it has become clear that refusals are not uncommon. The figures show that, over the past eight or nine years, refusals have averaged about 2 per cent. a year. Undoubtedly, the reasons for that decision vary. If people refuse an honour, that is their choice, but those who have made nominations are entitled to know the outcome.
	In recent years, there has been a fairly significant shift in the percentage of awards to people who dedicate so much of their time to voluntary work. I very much welcome that. In the 1994 birthday honours list, only one award in three was given for voluntary service. That figure rose to much nearer 50 per cent. over the next 10 years. In the 1999 new year's honours list, 57 per cent. of awards went to people who did voluntary work. However, I think that a greater percentageof the order of 75 per cent. or even 80 per cent. of the awardsshould go to those unsung heroes who dedicate so much of their time to voluntary service.
	A huge number of nominations have been submitted from my constituency. Some of them have my endorsement, as I am aware of the quality of the community work that the people involved have carried out locally. My frustration at the lack of progress being made with the nominations is matched only by that of the people who made the submissions.
	As might be expected, local people tryrightly or wronglyto draw comparisons between the nominations that they have submitted and the awards that are made. Often, they become exasperated when a person who has received one honour then receives a second. That exasperation is even more intense when such recipients are seen to be doing no more than the jobs that they are employed to do.
	Inevitably, honours will continue to be bestowed on people who excel in their career or profession. Indeed, it could be argued that too few awards are made to people in professions such as teaching, nursing and social work. However, it is the ordinary men and women who sacrifice their time and effort in the voluntary sector who remain unrepresented.
	I mentioned that a number of submissions from my area are still live in the system. They include nominations for those who work with young people in leisure and competitive pursuits, in uniformed youth organisations, and in the arts. There are also nominations for those who work with disabled people of all ages, and for those who work with carers. Many of those people have anywhere between 25 and 45 years' experience of voluntary work, and derive great pleasure from their work with specific groups. However, it is not only their time that they dedicate: all too often, they use their own finances to ensure that the work can continue.
	I know that the talent that works on a voluntary basis in Dumfries and Galloway is evident right across our country. None of the people involved began their volunteering with the aim of being rewarded. Seeing young people develop skills and talents, or watching disabled youngsters smile and enjoy themselves, or providing help and support for those who care for loved ones on a daily basis, is reward enough. However, more recognition for their efforts, in the form of an honour, can only boost the morale of the army of volunteers who work so tirelessly. That, surely, is what our honours system should be about.
	I understand that individual views about an application are subjective, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that there is concern about the current system. It needs to be either replaced, or significantly overhauled. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr. Wright), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, has launched an inquiry into the honours system. I expect that the Committee, under his leadership, will look very closely indeed at what needs to be done if the system is to be improved. I hope that the Committee will undertake a close examination of how awards are given, and to whom, in different parts of the country, and of the variations that arise. From speaking to colleagues in the House, there seem to be significant discrepancies in our communities. Not enough people in the voluntary sector receive awards. In Dumfries and Galloway over the past four years, around 40 people have done so, and only 20 per cent. of those awards went to people in the voluntary sector, even though, as I know only too well, good work is done in my community.
	I do not believe that there is enough local involvement in the honours selection process. Local panels should be established to assist with the process of considering applications and to recommend them to a committee of more senior standing that will deal with such matters.
	Around three years ago, a television programme was transmitted on the honours system. I did not see it, but I am reliably informed that there was heavy emphasis on the role played by lords lieutenant. Sir Richard Wilson's review of the system in 2001 showed that around 1,200 public nominations a year do not fit into neat departmental categories. That results in their being handled by the ceremonial branch, which appears to obtain views from lords lieutenant. I fully appreciate that lords lieutenant are recognised as Her Majesty's local representatives, but I am not convinced that they necessarily possess full knowledge of an individual's involvement in whatever activity that individual is associated with. Nor do I believe that the average lord lieutenant is necessarily representative of our local communities. I would appreciate it if the Minister could detail the extent to which lords lieutenant are involved in determining whether an application should be taken forward and whether they actually have a say in the final decisions on honours.
	As the system stands, in order to bring about fairness, accountability and openness in the selection process, I urge the Public Administration Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase to consider the secretive nature of the nine honours selection committees. If we are to create public confidence in the system, the committees should begin by naming, and possibly changing, the 54 people who sit on them. In 2001, that Whitehall group was described as a predominantly white, male, elderly elite. In spite of the system's secretive nature, I gather that the average age is 60, that only eight members are women and only two are from ethnic minorities. Two of the committees are still all male.
	In the 2003 birthday honours list, only around 37 per cent. of recipients were women, and only 20 per cent. of those who received a CBE or higher were women. Black and ethnic minorities received less than 7 per cent. of the honours awarded, and just 3.5 per cent. of the CBEs or higher. If the honours list is to be as representative as possible of outstanding service and achievement across the whole country, whether in the public, private or voluntary fields, the people involved in the selection process must be representative of the population as a whole.
	Finally, I want to mention the titles of the honours. The British empire was an important part of our history, and we should never be allowed to forget its significance. History books show, however, that as well as the positive side of our colonial past, there were many dark sides that should never be forgotten. I question the need to continue to link the empire to our honours system. Today's recipients of an honour are being recognised for their achievements in today's modern world, which brings with it the difficulties of today's modern society. For that reason, I hope that in continuing with an honours system, we can look for a modern system and discontinue the use of the phrase British empire in the awards.
	I want to make it clear that I congratulate all recipients of honours over the years, and, as a Scot, to say that nothing gave me greater pleasure than seeing England's team winning the rugby world cup. I am delighted that all those who took part were rewarded well. I only ask why the 1966 football team were not rewarded so quickly. I can see that the Minister, as a fellow Scot, wonders why I mention all this. I do it to show that the system can be fast-tracked if necessary. I have no doubt that the awards in the new year's honours list were right.
	If we are to retain the awards system and if we are to overcome the growing cynicism towards it, it is time that a modern society in the UK begins to develop an honours system that meets our needs and that is, above all else, open and accountable. I hope, therefore, that my suggestionsproper feedback to those making nominations, more involvement of local communities with local panels considering nominations, an increase in the number of awards to the voluntary sector, a change in the membership of the honours selection committees and an end to references to British Empire in the title of awardswill be considered by the Minister. We are embarking on a debate that will inevitably bring the honours system very much to the fore in the months and years ahead.

Douglas Alexander: I have listened with interest to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown). Time is pressing this evening, as I understand that he has a Burns supper to attend, and as a fellow Scot, I would not want to come between my hon. Friend and a plate of haggis and neeps. Also as a fellow Scot, it is hard to resist pointing out that the 1966 England football team was defeated by the Scottish team in 1967.
	My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points, and I have noted his concerns about the current honours system. I will respond to some of his specific points in a few moments and I will also give a brief overview of the current honours process, but I would like to begin by recognising the fact that, as he pointed out, my hon. Friend experienced difficulty in securing tonight's debate.
	The Prime Minister is responsible for the honours system. However, it has been a long-standing convention under successive Administrations that the Prime Minister does not take part in Adjournment debates such as this, and thus it has not in the past been possible to hold a debate on the issue in these circumstances. After my hon. Friend raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions on 18 December 2003, I was asked to represent the Prime Minister on this occasion so that my hon. Friend could secure his debate.
	As my hon. Friend acknowledged in his introductory remarks, responsibility for the honours system clearly rests with the Prime Minister. To give an example to show how the system works in practice, during my time at the Cabinet Office, on no occasion have I ever had sight of any honours lists before they are published in the London Gazette and the national newspapers, and on the No. 10 website. No other Minister, with the exception of the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for DefenceI shall come to that point in a momenthas direct responsibility, except in so far as they may be asked by the permanent secretary of their Department for views on the names that the Department has it in mind to put forward for the next new year or birthday honours list, whether those be the Department's civil servants or individuals who work in its field of expertise.
	Advice to the Prime Minister on honours matters comes from the Cabinet Secretary, and the Prime Minister himself makes recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen. The Cabinet Secretary has devolved his involvement in the honours process to Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Cabinet Office has managerial responsibility for the ceremonial branch, which co-ordinates the honours system. There is also an honours secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, who gives advice directly to the Prime Minister.
	I shall give the House a brief account of the way in which the current honours system operates in the United Kingdom, and I shall then say a little about the review of the system that is currently being carried out under the leadership of Sir Hayden Phillips. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister's honours lists are published twice a year, on new year's eve and on the Queen's official birthday in June. Each list includes up to 1,000 names. There are also separate lists for the diplomatic and military services, which the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary respectively oversee, and those are published at the same time.
	The selection process is independent of Ministers and is based on merit. A series of specialist assessment committees consider all the candidates put forward in a particular field, such as the arts, sport, industry and medicine, and each makes a series of recommendations. These recommendations go forward to a final moderating committee, which looks to achieve a balance of representation and standards across the proposed list. The revised list goes forward to the Prime Minister via the Cabinet Secretary. The Prime Minister may, of course, make changes to the list, but any new names that he adds will be scrutinised for propriety by the honours scrutiny committee before the final list goes forward to Her Majesty the Queen for approval.
	Achievement and service at many levels, over a wide variety of fields, have been recognised in a way which has given a great deal of pleasure not only to those honoured, but also to those who have been associated with or benefited from their work.
	The honours system has been criticised for being unduly opaque. My hon. Friend has raised concern about the lack of openness and clarity in the current system. That is why I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir Hayden Phillips is leading a review of the honours system which will look, in particular, at ways in which it can be made more open and transparent, without sacrificing the confidentiality of candidates, recipients and assessors, which is intended to protect them against undue interference or intervention. I wish Sir Hayden Phillips well with his review and look forward to seeing the outcome, probably within the next few months.
	I note that the Public Administration Committee is also currently conducting an inquiry into the honours system, and my hon. Friend may wish to feed into that inquiry his observations on the need to notify those making nominations of their progress, or indeed on the names of specific honours, and any other observations that he may have on the honours system in general. Iand no doubt many other hon. Memberslook forward to seeing the Committee's report on this matter in due course.
	My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of tracking where applications are in the honours process, and of notification of unsuccessful applications. It is true that under the current system people who have nominations are not routinely informed of progress. However, I would encourage any hon. Members concerned about progress to contact directly the ceremonial secretariat, which will be able to provide an update on the progress of a particular application.
	In answer to my hon. Friend's question about the extent of the involvement of the lords lieutenant in the honours process, I have been informed that they are consulted about candidates nominated for services at a very local level, to obtain a local assessment of the merit of the nominations. I have also been informed that the views of lords lieutenant are taken into account by the assessment committees, but that they play no part in the final decision-making process.
	I now turn to the important matter of the people who actually receive the awards. On each Prime Minister's list there will be some 30 to 35 awards at the level of knight or dame and 120 at companion or commander level, for people who have made important and inspirational contributions at a national or regional level. The remainder of the awards will be at OBE and, for more than half the list, at MBE level, on occasion reflecting the very local contribution made not just by the traditional lollipop lady, but by people such as scout leaders, ward nurses, parish councillors, lifeboat men and many, many more.
	I am informed that nearly half of all the awards in any one list go to people who are involved in one way or another in voluntary work, and half the people on the list will have been nominated by, or supported by, members of the public. Contrary to recent press speculation, these are not people who have been selected on political lines. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating all his constituents, and indeed those of other hon. Members, who have been rightly recognised for their exceptional achievement or service by the award of an honour.
	I have listened to the concerns and frustrations with the current honours system so clearly set out by my hon. Friend. I conclude with my own hope that the review led by Sir Hayden Phillips and the inquiry being carried out by the Public Administration Committee will at least go some way to meet the expectations of all those, including my hon. Friend, who have expressed views, both positive and negative, on the way in which the honours system currently operates.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock.